From: jqb AT netcom DOT com (Jim Balter) Subject: Re: Cygnus Cygwin32 Press Release 1/21/97 13 Feb 1997 19:19:10 -0800 Approved: cygnus DOT gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com Distribution: cygnus Message-ID: <3303A4F1.4B56.cygnus.gnu-win32@netcom.com> References: <9702132048 DOT AA14141 AT gnu DOT sdsp DOT mc DOT xerox DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (WinNT; I) Original-To: Marty Leisner Original-CC: Stan Shebs , gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com Original-Sender: owner-gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com Marty Leisner wrote: > > > > > Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 04:45:24 -0800 > > From: Jim Balter > > > > I was not referring to Cygnus' philosophy in general, only their > > philosophy towards FREE software. Placing free software under > > both the GPL and under a restricted-distribution license is a definite > > deviation. > > > > > > Actually, this approach makes a lot of sense. Patrick Powell is doing > it with LPRng... > > Most companies shy away from GPL. Saying "I'll pay for the privalege > not to have post source" is fine (in my book). I haven't said it wasn't fine. In fact I explicitly said that it was fitting that those who wish use free code but hoard their own must pay for the privilege. But not everyone shares the same philosophy. What I am trying to point out and/or explore are the consequences of the decision. One of the consequences is that 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. 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. -- - For help on using this list, send a message to "gnu-win32-request AT cygnus DOT com" with one line of text: "help".