Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Message-ID:	<3B5490DC.1010108@ece.gatech.edu>
Date:	Tue, 17 Jul 2001 15:24:12 -0400
From:	"Charles S. Wilson" <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; en-US; rv:0.9.1) Gecko/20010607 Netscape6/6.1b1
X-Accept-Language:	en-us
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	Kurt Roeckx <Q AT ping DOT be>
CC:	"Eric M. Monsler" <emonsler AT beamreachnetworks DOT com>,
	Corinna Vinschen <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject:	Re: CYGWIN1.DLL
References:	<20010717143212 DOT B730 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <POEMIHAKNHMKPMCELLMEIELNCFAA DOT christophe DOT wenk AT kuehne-nagel DOT com> <20010717152323 DOT F730 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <3B54715D DOT 5DD3CDDA AT beamreachnetworks DOT com> <20010717204004 DOT A10116 AT ping DOT be>

Kurt Roeckx wrote:

> 
> Anyway, I'm of the opinion the DLL should be LGPL.  It wouldn't
> force us to release software under the GPL if it's linked against
> it.
> 


You're missing the whole point.  That requirement is WHY cygwin is 
released under the GPL.  It's a feature, not a bug.  (Also, the FSF 
considers the LGPL to be a failed experiment, and no longer recommends 
its use. Ever.)  With Red Hat's Cygnus-inherited modification to the GPL 
in clause 10, the GPL allows developers of free(speech) software to 
freely use cygwin.

However, if you want to be proprietary, then you have to purchase a 
special proprietary cygwin license.  Why should someone who wants to 
hoard their code be allowed to benefit from cygwin for free(beer)? 
Makers of proprietary software, that wish to use cygwin, OUGHT to pay 
for the privelege.  Or they can open source their product, and avoid paying.

> May I also point out that if you download the binaries, it
> doesn't even say under which license it is.  


Neither does the Red Hat installer, or the Suse installer.  Why is this 
a requirement?  All packages are opensource--of various licenses--and 
the source code is provided for everything.  Not all are GPL, but most are.

> After running setup
> nowhere did it mention it was GPL, nor can I find any file which
> says it is.


That's true.  It is prominently stated on the web page, but perhaps the 
cygwin-1.3.3.tar.bz2 package should contain /usr/doc/cygwin.license or 
something.

> I guess that's the pain if you distribute something
> binary, and not everything has the same license.


So we provide the most freedom possible: all packages are supplied with 
current source, including patches (or CVS) to revert to the "official" 
version.


> The setup program itself, under what license does that fall?
> Where are the sources of it, if they are available?


GPL.  CVS, or in the cygwin-src tarball, under winsup/cinstall.

--Chuck



--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -