Subject: Re: Cygnus Cygwin32 Press Release 1/21/97
From: [email-masked] (Jim Balter)

11 Feb 1997 00:58:17 -0800
Approved: [email-masked]
Distribution: cygnus
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (WinNT; I)
Original-To: Paul Shirley <[email-masked]>
Original-CC: [email-masked]
Original-Sender: [email-masked]

Paul Shirley wrote:
> 
> In message <[email-masked]>, Jim Balter <[email-masked]>
> writes
> >> Unfortunently what they are
> >> saying is only they can make money from this effort.

I didn't write this.  Please be careful with attributions.

> No. What they are saying is you can make money under the LGPL licence
> terms *or* pay them some money for normal commercial terms (ie no
> source/object distribution required)

Nothing in cygwin.dll is under the LGPL.  If it were, no one would
have to pay Cygnus in order to use it commericially.

> >The software is free, so they can say it but it isn't so.
> >Cygnus can make money off of support, as they have always done
> >(see their motto); you can too, and they can't stop you.  But if they
> >think they can make money off of licenses for cygwin.dll, they are
> >dreaming (I won't even comment about the claims about "most
> >complete", "true compatibility", and "POSIX" in that press release,
> >except that the latter opens them up to a lawsuit if they haven't been
> >POSIX-certified).  They have already given the code away under the GPL.
> 
> Unless Cygnus have assigned the copyright to the FSF they can do
> anything they like with cygwin.dll. The (L)GPL prevents them
> retractively withdrawing GPL rights from a specific distribution. It
> *does not prevent another distribution under a different licence* by the
> copyright holders. Remember, the copyright holders don't need to be
> licenced to use or distribute their own code.

You (and Fergus Henderson, who said something similar) are right,
I misstated it.  Cygnus distributes their code under the GPL,
which "infects" anyone using it, requiring them to distribute
their own sources.  Cygnus can also issue their code under a
a restrictive copyright that would only allow licensees to use it
but would not "infect" them.  What Cygnus must not do (if they want to
make any money off this) is to release it under the LGPL or any other
copyright that allows unrestricted redistribution.

> It is fair to say that only people who need the Unix/gcc compatibility
> are likely to find the commercial licence a viable option to VC, but
> thats a whole different discussion.

It will be interesting to see if Cygnus can actually develop a market
for it.  I think that, in order to do so, they will have to greatly
improve its quality, which would be of benefit to people making
non-commerical use of it under the GPL (to the degree that the GPL'ed
version shaes code with the non-GPL'ed version).  OTOH, I plan to put
any patches I submit under the GPL, which would prevent Cygnus from
distributing them under their restrictive license.  This will have
the downside of not having these patches included into the Cygnus
distribution, but if that's the price I have to pay to keep them
free, so be it.

--
<J Q B>
-
For help on using this list, send a message to
"[email-masked]" with one line of text: "help".