From: drs AT inxpress DOT net (drs) Subject: Re: Cygnus Cygwin32 Press Release 1/21/97 12 Feb 1997 04:20:52 -0800 Approved: cygnus DOT gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com Distribution: cygnus Message-ID: <3300EB40.781.cygnus.gnu-win32@inxpress.net> References: <32FFEEF4 DOT 7EC9 AT netcom DOT com> Reply-To: drs AT inxpress DOT net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I) Original-To: Jim Balter Original-CC: gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com Original-Sender: owner-gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com Jim Balter wrote: [stuff snipped] > Using gcc does not force people to share their source code (I don't > think; see below). cygwin.dll is not gcc. I'm not convinced of this, Jim. In a very real sense, it is part of the port. Someone might quibble about what is and is not the compiler proper, but I think arguably Cygnus has added to the toolset and that it should automatically fall under the purview of GPL. consider the following: " If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this licence and its terms do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this licence..." GPL, sec 2 In other words, the issue comes down to two points: is cygwin32.dll "an independent and separate work in itself," and second, what is the context of distribution? If the context is a total compiler package, then even if the dll was written wholly and soley by Cygnus, it *must* be covered by GPL. On the other hand, if it is distributed along with some product written by Cygnus (say, a totally new, non-GNU product), then it is not covered, because that distribution is not part of the compiler package. As to the first point, surely there is some question about calling a DLL an "independent and separate work." DLL's by definition are worthless without a companion client they serve. So if the client is GCC, then I think it *must* be covered by GPL. If the client is some non-GNU program written for that API, then it is not covered and someone could distribute sans source, etc. Now, the question is, what about when you and I distribute vs. when cygnus distributes the dll? The upshot is that, as long as you or I were to offer a free distribution of the gnu-win32 compiler (etc.) at our web site (let us say), it will also be possible to continue distribution of cygwin32, without paying cygnus and without buying a commercial licence from them. As long as anyone who wants cygwin32.dll can get it in the context of the compiler package, source, etc., it *must* be provided as per GPL. It doesn't matter if it is used in a commercial context, etc., as long as the free software aspect is maintained. I think that's fairly plain from the above. Let me know how you read the situation, Best Regards, DRS > > > The reason why it > > is important to convert people over to using gcc is that the more people > > that are involved the more likely it is that progress is made. > > (Linux effort for instance). If people are willing to give away their > > programs for free but not willing to part with their source code and > > with gnu-win32 they can't then that is a problem. > > You are mixing up gcc with gnu-win32. Cygnus apparently no longer > shares the FSF philosophy towards free software. That's their right, > of course. That it is a "problem" for others who also don't share > the FSF philosophy that they don't get to both use Cygnus's code > and hoard their own seems like a fitting problem, to me. > > > My mailing is not so say that cygnus has done anything wrong. In fact > > I think that they have been very good to us giving us a free compiler > > for windows. > > I believe you can use the compiler, which is under the LGPL, and still > hoard your source. > > > I am just trying to say that to bring others to this effort > > in thousands rather than hundreds we at least have to be able to produce > > native binaries without cygnus's library. > > You can already do that with mingw32, so what's the issue here? > mingw32 isn't a Cygnus project and isn't affected by Cygnus's decision > in re cygwin.dll, I don't think. Unless the fact that gcc itself uses > cygwin.dll infects programs compiled with gcc, but I don't think so > (I'd have to read the GPL and LGPL again very carefully to be sure). > > -- > > - > For help on using this list, send a message to > "gnu-win32-request AT cygnus DOT com" with one line of text: "help". - For help on using this list, send a message to "gnu-win32-request AT cygnus DOT com" with one line of text: "help".