From: shebs AT cygnus DOT com (Stan Shebs) Subject: Re: Cygnus Cygwin32 Press Release 1/21/97 13 Feb 1997 20:46:50 -0800 Approved: cygnus DOT gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com Distribution: cygnus Message-ID: <199702140134.RAA10177.cygnus.gnu-win32@andros.cygnus.com> Original-To: jqb AT netcom DOT com Original-CC: leisner AT sdsp DOT mc DOT xerox DOT com, gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com In-reply-to: <3303A4F1.4B56@netcom.com> (message from Jim Balter on Thu, 13 Feb 1997 15: 34:09 -0800) Original-Sender: owner-gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 15:34:09 -0800 From: Jim Balter [...] 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. That is true. When you sign code over to somebody else, you do lose some control of the situation. For instance, the actual entity that is the "FSF" is very small (~5 people) and has very little money. If Microsoft wanted to, they could probably come up with a way to make the FSF disappear and acquire ownership of all the GNU code - hey, when you have $20 billion to work with, law and public opinion mean little. So how safe is it to assign your copyright to the FSF? 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. I wasn't around when Cygnus was founded, but in conversations with the founders, I never got the impression that they had in mind making only "reasonable amounts of money", or that they were focussed only on the "world where all software is free". The GNU Manifesto is a stirring document, but proposes software taxes and government involvement, which doesn't really jibe with the libertarian leanings of the Cygnus founders. I think this misunderstanding is an side-effect of Cygnus laboring in obscurity while the FSF gets most of the attention. We do a huge amount of infrastructure and groundwork, not just in code, but in the hearts and minds of the business world. We spend a lot of time talking to suits about how, no, GCC's GPL doesn't mean they have to give away their router's source code, and yes, even if RMS proclaims their company as evil, that Cygnus will still deal with them, and so forth. We make the case that free software is good, not because it's somehow morally superior, but because it has powerful leveraging qualities at both tactical and strategic levels. That point of view is perhaps not as inspiring for some individual hackers, but for instance, it is now the case that every company coming out with a new 32-bit microprocessor will spend a bunch of money to be sure that a GNU compiler is available when the chip is announced. That kind of ubiquity and credibility only comes from a business-oriented approach to free software, and that's the approach that Cygnus takes. Stan - For help on using this list, send a message to "gnu-win32-request AT cygnus DOT com" with one line of text: "help".