Mail Archives: cygwin/2001/05/26/22:09:51
Cygwin History:
The dark ages:
cygwin beta 15 ("mount" table idea introduced)
cygwin beta 16 ... 18 (don't know much about these)
cygwin beta 19 (seems to have been used fairly widely)
cygwin beta 20.1 (was the "current" version for over a year,
while cygwin 1.0/1.1.x was being readied)
Up to this point, cygwin consisted of a single massive
tarball that contained cygwin itself, along with a few
ported applications (like gcc, etc). Other addons were
provided by outside contributors, via external sites.
For instance, Andy Piper had a 18Meg tarball called
"usr-local.tar.gz" (separate tarball for B19 and B20.1)
which contained ncurses, gdbm, graphics libs, etc. Andre'
Olivieri distributed a version of X11R6.4 from his
website. Sergey Okhapkin distributed a version of X11R6.3
from his website. You get the picture.
---> cygwin 1.0 released in two forms: with the GNUpro
product and in the CD distribution ($79 I think, but
no longer available). The CD contained a lot of
programs that are NOT, strictly speaking, part of
cygwin: they were just compiled using cygwin and
were included, along with source, on the CD as a
bonus.
cygwin 1.1.x net release based on 1.0 core, but with new
setup.exe-based packaging (January 2000 ish)
About this time, I (charles wilson) released my own version
of Andy's "usr-local" tarball, which provided lots of
goodies but was compiled to work with the cygwin release --
Andy's B19 and B20.1 packages did not. However, over the
last 18 months, I and many others have converted the
individual pieces of my usr-local distro into setup-compatible
packages. These are now distributed directly from the
cygwin mirror/packaging system. The last step of this
process was completed less than two weeks ago (when Steve O.
added his 'rxvt' port to the official dist, making the last
remaining piece of my old usr-local package unnecessary.
Note that many of these pieces were NOT included in the
CD only cygwin1.0 distribution. Also, the argument below
about "copyright assignment" and "ownership" applies only
to the core cygwin package itself; the other packages are
covered under their own license (usually FSF-owned GPL)
cygwin 1.3.x (May 2001 ish)
Many improvements over the 1.1.x series, but also
introduced a few new bugs. One is related to the recent
symlink change -- in 1.1.x, symlinks were a cygwin-only
thing; windows progs didn't understand them. In 1.3.x,
symlinks are implemented as Windows Shortcuts, but that
leads to another set of difficuties, which is being
addressed on cygwin-developers as we speak.
Note that ALL contributors to cygwin (the core dll itself and
attached stuff -- look inside cygwin-1.3.2-1.tar.gz for a
complete list) sign over ALL ownership to Cygnus (now Red Hat).
Therefore Red Hat OWNS it. They can do ANYTHING they want with
it -- including charge money -- as long as they abide by the GPL.
The GPL requires ONLY that IF an entity (Red Hat) distributes a
GPL'ed binary, it must also distribute the source. Thus, if you
obtained cygwin1.0 binaries under the GPL, THEN you would be
entitled to the cygwin1.0 sources. The GPL says practically
NOTHING about money. You can charge $$ to distribute GPL'ed
binaries. You can also charge a small fee for distributing the
sources of those GPL'ed binaries ***to folks who have already
legally obtained*** the binaries. However, it is Red Hat's
decision as to whether to charge $$ to distribute the binaries
in the first place.
But, because Red Hat OWNS cygwin, it can ALSO distribute it
according to other licensing terms -- and, in the case of
cygwin1.0, it chose to do so (and still does so) in its GNUpro
product. (Although, I *think* the CD distribution of cygwin1.0
-- as distinguished from the "GNUpro" product -- was distributed
under the GPL. In any case, you are NOT entitled to the source
code UNLESS you legally obtain the binary. In the case of
the CD, "legally" means "purchased". With $$$.
As far as some "immorality" imputed because cygwin 1.0 is not
available for free net download, that's balderdash. The netizens
don't own cygwin. Red Hat owns cygwin. If you don't like it,
don't contribute to the core package. Those who HAVE contributed
to cygwin CHOSE to sign copyright ownership of their changes
over to Red Hat. It was THIER choice to do so. Not yours:
you haven't contributed code to cygwin.
'nuff said.
Anyway, why would you want 1.0? The only way you can claim that
1.0 is more stable than current net releases is because it's
frozen -- 1.0's bugs are known, and permanent for all time. In
the net releases, bugs are continually squashed -- but as features
are added, new bugs appear.
Sure, it's a pain to keep updating your mental list of current bugs
(crossing off the squashed ones and adding the new ones) -- but you
don't HAVE to upgrade. You can stick with 1.1.8 forever if you'd
like (just as the commercial customers stick with 1.0 forever).
However, if you decide to stick with 1.1.8, be warned: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
is a user-supported list for users of the current cygwin (whatever the
"current" version happens to be at any given time, new bugs, old bugs,
and all). There is no support list for old cygwin's. (Note: since
the cygwin 1.0 buyers PAID for the product, they are entitled to
official support which is provided by Red Hat. cygwin 1.0 buyers
are supported via mechanisms other than public mailing lists. This
includes those who bought the GNUpro product and those who bought
the "Cygwin CD".
-----------
Let the "Cygwin GPL vs. Proprietary Licensing" flame wars begin! (We
haven't had one of those in a while) However, unless you (the reader)
want to appear an idiot, do a quick search in the archives and read the
several HUNDRED messages on this subject that have appeared in previous
flamewars...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%2Bcygwin+%2Blicensing
--Chuck
"C. Porter Bassett" wrote:
>
> I, for one, would like to hear and straightforward reply to this question.
> I don't know too much about cygwin's history. Was cygwin 1.0 the version
> that cygnus was selling for like $100 before they got bought by red hat?
> Was is that much more stable than what we have now?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Randall R Schulz" <rrschulz AT cris DOT com>
> To: <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
> Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2001 12:16 PM
> Subject: Re: About Cygwin 1.0
>
> >
> > Just when you think you've heard it all...
> >
> > Maybe the writer meant "immortal" instead of "immoral?"
> >
> > Randall Schulz
> > Mountain View, CA USA
> >
> >
> > At 09:25 2001-05-26, you wrote:
> > >Hello!
> > >
> > >Thank you for the free Cygwin software. One thing I'd like to talk about:
> > >I was surprised to find no information on your pages (especially FAQ)
> > >about the reasons why you have not released the stable Cygwin 1.0
> > >via the net.
> > > Is it that you want people to use the unstable versions in order
> > >to hasten the development of future versions (by their bug reports)?
> > >In the spirit of the Gnu Public Licence, that would seem immoral to me.
> > >If the public develops the software (under GPL) with their contributions,
> > >they should also be allowed to enjoy the fruits (and not be constrained
> to
> > >keep toiling with bugs when a stable version exists).
> > > So please, let me know the true reasons why Cygwin 1.0 is not
> > >distributed on the net.
> > >
> > > If people could more readily use stable versions in their
> developments,
> > >perhaps Cygwin's reputation would improve (as it pertains to
> reliability).
> > >
> > >I thank you and I wish you success with your Cygwin affairs.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Want to unsubscribe from this list?
> > Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
> >
>
> --
> Want to unsubscribe from this list?
> Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
- Raw text -