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

13 Feb 1997 19:19:10 -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: Marty Leisner <[email-masked]>
Original-CC: Stan Shebs <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Original-Sender: [email-masked]

Marty Leisner wrote:
> 
> >
> >    Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 04:45:24 -0800
> >    From: Jim Balter <[email-masked]>
> >
> >    I was not referring to Cygnus' philosophy in general, only their
> >    philosophy towards FREE software.  Placing free software under
> >    both the GPL and under a restricted-distribution license is a definite
> >    deviation.
> >
> >
> 
> Actually, this approach makes a lot of sense.  Patrick Powell is doing
> it with LPRng...
> 
> Most companies shy away from GPL.  Saying "I'll pay for the privalege
> not to have post source" is fine (in my book).

I haven't said it wasn't fine.  In fact I explicitly said that it was
fitting that those who wish use free code but hoard their own must pay
for the privilege.  But not everyone shares the same philosophy.  What I
am trying to point out and/or explore are the consequences of the
decision.  One of the consequences is that people who want to make
contributions but would have liked to have had the code put under the
LGPL rather than the GPL may be reluctant to sign ownership over to
Cygnus, who then become the only ones with the right to build
proprietary products with it.  That is *not* the case when people sign
code over to the FSF, because the FSF puts libraries under the LGPL
rather than retaining unique rights to proprietary use.

Cygnus wants to make lots of money.  That's fine.  But wanting to do so
via restrictive licenses, and doing so in a way that facilitates others
to hoard their source is quite definitely not in line with the GNU
manifesto.  There is no crime in not sharing that philosophy; most
people don't.  But I think Cygnus was started on a different premise,
RMS' premise that one could make reasonable amounts of money in a world
where all software is free.  If Cygnus's experience is that that isn't
the case, or that even those few who subscribe to such a philosophy are
unable to resist the temptation to "do better", it is worth knowing.

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