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

12 Feb 1997 04:20:52 -0800
Approved: [email-masked]
Distribution: cygnus
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: [email-masked]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I)
Original-To: Jim Balter <[email-masked]>
Original-CC: [email-masked]
Original-Sender: [email-masked]

Jim Balter wrote:

[stuff snipped]

> Using gcc does not force people to share their source code (I don't
> think; see below).  cygwin.dll is not gcc.

I'm not convinced of this, Jim. In a very real sense, it is part of the
port.
Someone might quibble about what is and is not the compiler proper, but
I think
arguably Cygnus has added to the toolset and that it should 
automatically fall under the purview of GPL. consider the following:

" If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the
program, 
and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in 
themselves, then this licence and its terms do not apply to those 
sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you 
distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based 
on the program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of 
this licence..."
						GPL, sec 2

In other words, the issue comes down to two points: is cygwin32.dll 
"an independent and separate work in itself," and second, what is the
context of distribution? If the context is a total compiler package,
then
even if the dll was written wholly and soley by Cygnus, it *must* be
covered
by GPL. On the other hand, if it is distributed along with some product
written by Cygnus (say, a totally new, non-GNU product), then it is not 
covered, because that distribution is not part of the compiler package. 

As to the first point, surely there is some question about calling a DLL
an
"independent and separate work." DLL's by definition are worthless
without a
companion client they serve. So if the client is GCC, then I think it
*must*
be covered by GPL. If the client is some non-GNU program written for
that
API, then it is not covered and someone could distribute sans source,
etc.

Now, the question is, what about when you and I distribute vs. when
cygnus
distributes the dll?  

The upshot is that, as long as you or I were to offer a free
distribution
of the gnu-win32 compiler (etc.) at our web site (let us say), it will 
also be possible to continue distribution of cygwin32, without paying 
cygnus and without buying
a commercial licence from them. As long as anyone who wants cygwin32.dll 
can get it in the context of the compiler package, source, etc., it
*must*
be provided as per GPL. It doesn't matter if it is used in a commercial
context,
etc., as long as the free software aspect is maintained. I think that's 
fairly plain from the above. Let me know how you read the situation,

Best Regards,
DRS

> 
> > The reason why it
> > is important to convert people over to using gcc is that the more people
> > that are involved the more likely it is that progress is made.
> > (Linux effort for instance). If people are willing to give away their
> > programs for free but not willing to part with their source code and
> > with gnu-win32 they can't then that is a problem.
> 
> You are mixing up gcc with gnu-win32.  Cygnus apparently no longer
> shares the FSF philosophy towards free software.  That's their right,
> of course.  That it is a "problem" for others who also don't share
> the FSF philosophy that they don't get to both use Cygnus's code
> and hoard their own seems like a fitting problem, to me.
> 
> > My mailing is not so say that cygnus has done anything wrong. In fact
> > I think that they have been very good to us giving us a free compiler
> > for windows.
> 
> I believe you can use the compiler, which is under the LGPL, and still
> hoard your source.
> 
> > I am just trying to say that to bring others to this effort
> > in thousands rather than hundreds we at least have to be able to produce
> > native binaries without cygnus's library.
> 
> You can already do that with mingw32, so what's the issue here?
> mingw32 isn't a Cygnus project and isn't affected by Cygnus's decision
> in re cygwin.dll, I don't think.  Unless the fact that gcc itself uses
> cygwin.dll infects programs compiled with gcc, but I don't think so
> (I'd have to read the GPL and LGPL again very carefully to be sure).
> 
> --
> <J Q B>
> -
> For help on using this list, send a message to
> "[email-masked]" with one line of text: "help".
-
For help on using this list, send a message to
"[email-masked]" with one line of text: "help".