From: scottk AT utig DOT ig DOT utexas DOT edu (Scott Kempf)
Subject: Re: Cygnus Cygwin32 Press Release 1/21/97
17 Feb 1997 17:10:50 -0800
Approved: cygnus DOT gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com
Distribution: cygnus
Message-ID: <199702172158.PAA08165.cygnus.gnu-win32@utig.ig.utexas.edu>
Original-To: gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com
Original-Sender: owner-gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com

I started contributing to cygwin32 for three reasons:

    I wanted POSIX for windows 95.
    I wanted to learn the win32 API.
    I wanted to contribute to free software.

I had always assumed that the lack of an LGPL was an innocent mistake.

Cygnus clearly crossed a line when they switched from making
money through support and distribution to restrictive licensing.

A legal sidebar:

    I've read GPL and LGPL and it's hard to say what the legal
    ramification are.  It's too bad we can't all afford lawyers.
    One thing I know, you can't distribute groff binaries as some
    people have already done.  Remember that all cygwin32 binaries
    contain crt0, which is GPL.  If you distribute it, you must
    distribute it's source.  I for one don't want to liable for
    distributing all of cygwin32 source just to include a binary
    with it's source.  Remember GPL (instead of LGPL) causes as
    much problem for _freeware_ code as is does for commercial.
    (I suspect that you could distribute commercial binaries on
    CD with cygwin32, if you included all cygwin32 source.)

I had intended to hold my next bug fixes until the next release,
so see how things shake out.  Recent Cygnus postings have convinced
me otherwise.  I will no longer contribute to cygwin32 without
payment or an LGPL.

				    Good-bye,
				    Scott

P.S. Please note that what I care about GPL vs LGPL, not
     commercial vs free.  I don't see any other issue here.
     I do want cygnus to make money.
-
For help on using this list, send a message to
"gnu-win32-request AT cygnus DOT com" with one line of text: "help".