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

14 Feb 1997 12:39:24 -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: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 15:34:09 -0800
>    From: Jim Balter <[email-masked]>
> 
>    [...] 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.
> 
> That is true.  When you sign code over to somebody else, you do lose
> some control of the situation.  For instance, the actual entity that
> is the "FSF" is very small (~5 people) and has very little money.  If
> Microsoft wanted to, they could probably come up with a way to make
> the FSF disappear and acquire ownership of all the GNU code - hey,
> when you have $20 billion to work with, law and public opinion mean
> little.  So how safe is it to assign your copyright to the FSF?

I'm really not interested in specious arguments about what might
happen in some possible world.  Am I to gather from this that Cygnus
would not be willing to put contributed code under the LGPL at the
author's request?  That is what I am concerned with.

>    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.
> 
> I wasn't around when Cygnus was founded, but in conversations with the
> founders, I never got the impression that they had in mind making only
> "reasonable amounts of money", or that they were focussed only on the
> "world where all software is free".  The GNU Manifesto is a stirring
> document, but proposes software taxes and government involvement,
> which doesn't really jibe with the libertarian leanings of the Cygnus
> founders.

That is a gain a specious argument; I referred to one premise of RMS',
not every premise he might hold to.  As for his software taxes, they
were one possible answer to an objection to the viability of free
software.

Anyway, I wrote of what is worth knowing, and you have provided some of
that.  Thanks.  These issues are of concern to people who might be
contributing code to your projects.

> I think this misunderstanding is an side-effect of Cygnus laboring in
> obscurity while the FSF gets most of the attention.

Perhaps, but I don't think so.  I think it is a consequence of
Cygnus, when it started, explicitly referring to the statement in the
GNU manifesto that

     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.
 
> We do a huge
> amount of infrastructure and groundwork, not just in code, but in the
> hearts and minds of the business world.  We spend a lot of time
> talking to suits about how, no, GCC's GPL doesn't mean they have to
> give away their router's source code, and yes, even if RMS proclaims
> their company as evil, that Cygnus will still deal with them, and so
> forth.  We make the case that free software is good, not because it's
> somehow morally superior, but because it has powerful leveraging
> qualities at both tactical and strategic levels.  That point of view
> is perhaps not as inspiring for some individual hackers, but for
> instance, it is now the case that every company coming out with a new
> 32-bit microprocessor will spend a bunch of money to be sure that a
> GNU compiler is available when the chip is announced.  That kind of
> ubiquity and credibility only comes from a business-oriented approach
> to free software, and that's the approach that Cygnus takes.

This is all lovely, although I think you are giving Cygnus too much
credit for these developments.

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