Subject: gnu-win32 licensing terms.
From: [email-masked] (Shaya Potter)

20 Jul 1997 18:09:14 -0700
Approved: [email-masked]
Distribution: cygnus
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: [email-masked]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win16; I)
Original-To: [email-masked]
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Original-Sender: [email-masked]

[I'm not subscribed to this list, so please cc: response to me]

There's been a lot of discussion lately on the licensing terms of Cygnus
gnu-win32.  Cygnus, according to my understanding, felt that the LGPL
was not restrictive enough to protect them from their competition.  So
they decided to move it to the GPL.  However, others had problems with
this because they felt the GPL was too restrictive.  Cygnus then decided
to make a license similar to the LGPL in many cases, except that it
discrimintated against their competition.  I believe that is their right
to do, however, I want to know why the license can't be similar to
perls. Perl is licensed under either the Artistic License or the GPL, at
the users choice.  Why can't gnu-win32 be similar.  It'd be licensed
under the Cygnus License or the GPL at the users choice.  Some users
would be forced to use the GPL, but that would still enable the license
to be considered "non-discriminatory".

Thanks,

Shaya Potter
[email-masked]
-
For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to
"[email-masked]" with one line of text: "help".