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

12 Feb 1997 17:45:26 -0800
Approved: [email-masked]
Distribution: cygnus
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]> <[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: Barry Fishman <[email-masked]>
Original-CC: [email-masked]
Original-Sender: [email-masked]

Barry Fishman wrote:
> 
> Discussion of Cygnus's actions really belongs in the gnu.misc.discuss
> news group, but for those who have not followed that group:

Perhaps Geoff Noer should have pointed there instead of dropping the
press release here.

> I think the standard FSF position would be that Cygnus is behaving
> fairly.  The GPL licence allows anyone to use gnu-win32 in developing
> their own software and sell [Yes, I said sell] programs linked with it
> for whatever price they like.  The only restriction is that they (like
> Cygnus) put their software under the GPL so their customers have
> access to the source and can freely distribute it (as Cygnus allows
> them).
> 
> Cygnus is now adding that if you want to develop software while
> restricting access to the source and redistribution rights (what the
> FSF calls hoarding), they will not stop you.  They just want a share
> of the action.

The problem though is that cygwin.dll is made up of code with all sorts
of different copyrights, including code under the GPL (not LGPL)
that does not belong to Cygnus.  Cygnus would have to purge their
library of such code before they could put cygwin.dll under and
restricted-distribution license.  Also, any code that they retain
that still is under the LGPL, either owned by them or not, would not
be subject to their licensing restrictions.

> I did not get the impression that they were going to
> produce a separate proprietary version of their software.

Impressions are mere opinions.  The question is, just what are their
plans?  They referred to a future IDE, and it isn't at all clear that
that or other future developments would not be proprietary.

> Personally, I am grateful to be able to use the software and have
> learned a great deal about win32 by the discussions in this mailing
> list and access to the sources.  Any profits Cygnus makes from the
> software I see as an assurance to me that it will continue to
> support it.

I just spent half a day rewriting times.cc in winsup and fixing at
least 6 bugs.  I am now in a quandary as to what to do with the result.
If I post it publicly, I would do so under the GPL.  But then Cygnus
could not incorporate the result into their library.  And if their
library with a proprietary license suddenly shows up with these bugs
fixed but the code looks a little different from mine, I may have
grounds for a lawsuit.  Given the way Cygnus is going, and considering
the quality of some of the code I have looked at, I am seriously
considering developing my own POSIX emulation library, independent of
any particular compiler.  But I need to decide whether or how free
I would make it before I make any of it available. 

I think that you have to decide up front what your policy is.
Cygnus should have either put the library under the LGPL in the first
place and treated it like any other non-proprietary code that they
support, or they should have switched their strategy and developed
a proprietary product.  Straddling the fence as they are doing is going
to create confusion.  The issue isn't whether they are playing "fairly",
but whether they have a viable and coherent strategy.

> If you have problems with FSF approach to software development, you
> are being given an alternative way to make use of their software.  I
> don't see where anyone has reason to be upset.

No one seems to be upset.  I think you have misconstrued the
level of the discussion.

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