Subject: Re: The [email-masked] mailing list
From: [email-masked] (Jim Balter)

15 Feb 1997 18:42:21 -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: Bill Mann/US/Praxis <[email-masked]>
Original-CC: noer <[email-masked]>, gnu-win32 <[email-masked]>,
        rms <"(Richard_Stallman)_rms.gnu..ai..mit..edu"@notes.praxisint.com (Richard_Stallman)>
Original-Sender: [email-masked]

Bill Mann/US/Praxis wrote:
> 
> Based on the recent Cygnus press release, I object to the name of this mailing
> list, 'gnu-win32'.
> 
> The principle subject of this list is the proprietary cywin32.dll library, and

That is not true; the subject of the list is the port of the GNU C
compiler and the GNU utilities to Windows, as well as the library that
made that possible.  Many of the questions here have to do with make,
patch, gzip, tar, etc. etc.  That your personal focus may be more narrow
does not establish what the list is for.

> ports of free software based on it.  This can not be (or at least, is no
> longer) part of the gnu project, since it is based on a central library which
> is not distributed under the LGPL, but rather under a tightly restricted,
> for-profit license.

This is specious, since nothing has changed in regard to porting free
software, software put under the GPL.

> This is inconsistent with the expressed goals of the GNU project, since
> cygwin32.dll provides essential services, at about the same level as libc.a.

This is specious; the LGPL is quite explicit that libraries may be
placed under the GPL rather than the LGPL at the author's discretion.

> The fact that Cygnus is releasing the cygwin32 sources under the GPL does not
> alter the situation.

Although I have questioned Cygnus' decision to go the route of
GPL+restrictive license rather than LGPL in terms of its effects upon
contributors, and whether it is true to the spirit of the GNU manifesto
in its more optimistic aspects of hoping that people could make enough
money in a totally free software world, the LGPL has already altered
that, and Cygnus has every right to do what they have done.  Of course
the fact that Cygnus has put it under the GPL "alters the situation":
the GPL makes the code free.  There are only two differences I can see
between putting the library under the LGPL and putting it under the
GPL+restrictive license: a) the latter forces code hoarders to pay
Cygnus for the privilege, whereas with the LGPL they could hoard code
for free; my problem with this as a contributor is that I don't want
Cygnus to have a special right to profit from code that I contribute; b)
code hoarders may be able to pay to make proprietary modifications to
the cygwin32 code.  The latter *would* violate the GNU spirit, but it
has been my impression from comments from Cygnus about maintaining a
single code base that this is not the intent.  Since the terms of the
license are not yet available, perhaps Cygnus can comment upon this
point: will licensees have the right to hoard changes they make to
cygwin32 and sell them?  I think it would make business (support, code
maintenance) and "free software" sense if they did not; if any such
changes, in order to be distributed commercially, must be assigned back
ito Cygnus to be incorporated freely into the free code base.  Forcing
code hoarders to make free any code that modified free software would
certainly be consistent with GNU's "expressed goals".

> Now that cywin32 is an independent commercial product, it should no longer use
> the name 'gnu'.  When GNU is released by the FSF under Windows32, I doubt that
> it will be based on a commercial product.

There is no contradiction between "free" in the GNU sense and
"commercial".
 
> In my opinion, people interested in the GNU project will probably not find this
> list of any further interest, unless:
> 
>     . they are evaluating commercial UNIX to Windows32 porting technology
> 
>     . they want to make use of the Cygnus free software ports

In other words, all commercial non hoarders.  Those are people who are
acting consistently with GNU's "expressed goals", so your complaint
seems to suffer from a serious lack of "beef".
 
>     . they are coding strictly for internal use
> 
>     . they simply curious
> 
>     . they are potential cheaters

None of this would be any different if cygwin32 were under the GPL
without the addition of a restrictive license.

> 
> Shareware and commercial software venders can't use cygwin32.dll without
> licensing from Cygnus.

Of course they can; all non code hoarding shareware and commercial
software vendors can use cygwin32.dll without getting a restrictive
license from Cygnus.  They are already entitled to a free license, under
the terms of the GPL.  Perhaps the LGPL has conceded so much to
"realities" that people have simply forgotten that the original concept
of GNU included free commercial software.

> People writing new code, either under the GPL license or as freeware, must be
> careful not to incorporate any of cygwin32 code into anything which they may
> someday want to release under the LGPL, since Cygnus would have the right to
> refuse to allow that.

Your argument is completely specious, since the exact same thing is true
of any code that is under the GPL, regardless of whether there is also a
restrictive license.  LGPL code that is based upon GPL code comes under
the GPL, just as any code does.  That certainly doesn't contradict any
GPL/GNU principles.  LGPL is a concession to commercial realities to
enable more code sharing by letting programmers use free tools even when
their companies won't let them share their own code, but the GPL is "the
real thing" and the LGPL explicitly acknowledges the right of authors to
use the GPL rather than the LGPL.  Cygnus' restrictive license has the
same effect as the LGPL of allowing hoarders to use the tools, plus the
fact that Cygnus gets paid for such use, and possibly my point (b) above
of those companies hoarding changes to the tools, which hopefully Cygnus
will bar in their restrictive license.

> If Cygnus asks you to assign them rights to any changes
> you submit, read the 'fine print' carefully to be sure you're satisfied;
> assigning rights to Cygnus is not the same as assigning them to the Free
> Software Foundation.

It's always good to read the fine print.  That of course has nothing to
do with ranting about the name of a mailing list.

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