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

13 Feb 1997 21:57:45 -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: Stan Shebs <[email-masked]>
Original-CC: [email-masked]
Original-Sender: [email-masked]

Stan Shebs 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.
> 
> True enough, this is a change from past practices.  We've also
> switched to bringing in $20M/year instead of $1k/month. :-) Cygnus is
> just a business, and we have to adapt our strategy to what makes the
> most sense businesswise.

But Cygnus didn't start out doing "what makes the most sense
businesswise", they started out with RMS' premise that
it was possible to make "enough" money supporting free software.

> We *do* have precedent for dual licensing -
> Aladdin's Ghostscript.  I hear more votes of thanks to Peter Deutsch
> than I hear condemnations...

What condemnations?

>    One result is that folks like me, who are thoroughly
>    familiar with the POSIX standard and just how far cygwin deviates
>    from it, will now be loathe to share any improvements to it.
>    If I do share them, I will put them under the GPL, which means *you
>    can't use them*, which means that cygwin as a public entity and cygwin
>    as a Cygnus proprietary entity would diverge, something that the GPL
>    and LGPL were explicitly intended to avoid.
> 
> I don't see how you get that out of the GPL, and in any case, the GPL
> has had no apparent effect on the divergence of GNU tools.  There are
> dozens and dozens of variant GCC and GDB releases out in the world -
> Intel's i960 tools, Wind River's tools, Lynx' tools, versions for
> funky DSPs, and many others.  The only distinguishing characteristic
> of FSF releases is that they are distributed more widely.

I thought I could get that from the GNU manifesto, but I now can't
find it there, and in any case I grant the point in existing practice.

> With respect to taking contributed changes, Cygnus has the same policy
> for winsup as the FSF does for GNU tools; nothing beyond a small patch
> can be accepted without a disclaimer or assignment of copyright.  If
> you look carefully at the GNU sources, you'll see that they're all
> copyright FSF.  That keeps the code from having multiple owners with
> conflicting terms, which IMHO has been a key success factor for GNU;
> no company can grab at GNU sources because they've all handed over
> paperwork giving up ownership.

I've pointed out elsewhere that the FSF puts libraries under the
LPGL rather than the GPL, thereby not retaining exclusive rights
to proprietary use.  Cygnus, by putting the library under the GPL
and having a separate restrictive license, retains the right to decide
who can use the library with proprietary software.  I am reluctant
to give contributions to Cygnus that they will put under the GPL
that I might prefer put under the LGPL.  Perhaps Cygnus would be
willing to put such contributions under the LGPL at the authors'
request? 

>    So, just how much money do you really think you can make from your
>    proprietary licenses, that this is worth it?  Have you folks even
>    *considered* putting cygwin under the LGPL and charging for support,
>    per your motto?
> 
> The truth is that we've already heard from a number of prospects
> asking about license terms - they don't have a problem with the
> concept, since they work with a multitude of licenses every single
> day, and they just want to know the price.  In the larger markets that
> are now adopting cygwin32, it's actually *easier* to sell licenses
> than to explain the GPL or LGPL over and over again.  Kind of ironic...

This doesn't answer the questions.  Your product isn't ready for
a commercial market, but I wonder if the people projecting profits
realize that.  And what about this "POSIX" claim in the press release?
Have you obtained the certification that gives you the right to make
the claim?

> (Which motto are you thinking of anyway?)

"Making free software affordable."  Certainly the original intent
was "via support".  To quote from the GNU manifesto:

     If people would rather pay for GNU plus service than get GNU free
  without service, a company to provide just service to people who have
  obtained GNU free ought to be profitable.

Of course that was before the concept of the LGPL was developed,
and RMS hadn't anticipated that people would also be willing to
pay for the right to hoard source.  I think that it is fitting
that people have to pay for that right, but I'm reluctant to sign
those profits over to Cygnus for any contributions I make.

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