Subject: RE: Cygwin license
From: Bernard Dautrevaux <[email-masked]>
To: "'Chris Faylor'" <[email-masked]>, Earnie Boyd <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 19:40:35 +0100

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Faylor [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 1999 4:42 PM
> To: Earnie Boyd
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Cygwin license
> 

	...

> We do consider changing the licensing from time to time but, 
> so far, no
> one has been able to convince the powers that be at Cygnus that making
> cygwin into a LGPLed program would be worthwhile.  It would certainly
> remove some of the incentive for buying the commercial product but,
> perhaps more importantly, it would allow people to produce proprietary
> applications based on the cygwin DLL.  That does not sound like a good
> plan to me.

But a good plan is having Cygwin get some Kbucks (I've heard 8K$? is
that true) to allow "produce proprietary applications based on the
cygwin DLL"?... This seems a bit hard to defend:

Either you are strongly supporting open source and do NOT want anybody
producing proprietary code based on cygwin and then you should stop
selling licenses to cygwin that allow that; either you think this is not
immoral and then you should not CHARGE a fee for that...

It seems having cygwin GPLed has only one objective: subvert the open
source concept by getting people test and enhance a piece of code that
is in fact proprietary Cygnus software that generates revenues to Cygnus
by selling licenses to use a GPLed product.

Excuse me if I'm a bit confused, but the situation is confusing...

Best regards,

		Bernard

--------------------------------------------
Bernard Dautrevaux
Microprocess Ingéniérie
97 bis, rue de Colombes
92400 COURBEVOIE
FRANCE
Tel:	+33 (0) 1 47 68 80 80
Fax:	+33 (0) 1 47 88 97 85
e-mail:	[email-masked]
		[email-masked]
-------------------------------------------- 

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to [email-masked]