Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 17:00:07 +0800 (HKT)
From: Lam Pui Yuen <yuen AT hknet DOT com>
To: Fergus Henderson <fjh AT cs DOT mu DOT OZ DOT AU>
cc: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT cygnus DOT com>, cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Subject: Re: Cygwin participation threshold
In-Reply-To: <19990225191420.16813@mundook.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.95.990225170005.16688A-100000@topaz.hknet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

done !

On Thu, 25 Feb 1999, Fergus Henderson wrote:

> On 24-Feb-1999, Christopher Faylor <cgf AT cygnus DOT com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 25, 1999, Fergus Henderson wrote:
> > >Yes, but you can write and distribute proprietry applications or even
> > >proprietry kernel modules for Linux without paying anyone a license fee.
> > >The same is not true for Cygwin (although it *was* true once, back around
> > >version b16, when it was called gnu-win32).
> > 
> > True, but that is not the point.  I believe this whold thread started
> > because I lamented the lack of people contributing directly to cygwin
> > development.
> 
> You also asked why.  I believe that licensing may be one of the reasons why.
> So I don't think my comment is beside the point.  You may disagree with me,
> but I think we're talking about the same topic.
> 
> > The many contributors to the linux kernel do not do so
> > because it is possible to develop proprietary code for linux.
> 
> That may not be their direct motivation, but I do think it is a
> significant factor.  I think that if it were impossible to develop
> proprietry code for Linux, then Linux would have a much smaller user
> base, and there would be far fewer contributors to Linux.
> 
> > I don't consider companies who create proprietary kernel modules as
> > contributing to linux development in any way.
> 
> The ability to create proprietry kernel modules is of little importance.
> The ability to create proprietry applications is of much greater importance.
> 
> > Possibly they help indirectly
> > by getting the word out about linux but that is a secondary and, IMO, very
> > minor benefit.
> 
> I agree that the benefits are indirect and secondary.  However,
> I don't think they should be ignored.
> 
> In addition to getting the word out, companies which develop proprietry
> applications (or kernel modules) often also help
> 
> 	(1) by using Linux, and in the process sometimes reporting
> 	    and/or fixing bugs in the kernel and/or the various
> 	    open-source applications that are part of Linux; sometimes
> 	    they will even add whole new features which are needed for
> 	    their proprietry application (or module); and
> 
> 	(2) by providing software (or drivers) which other people need,
> 	    and thus encouraging those other people to use Linux,
> 	    leading to the same benefits as (1).
> 
> -- 
> Fergus Henderson <fjh AT cs DOT mu DOT oz DOT au>  |  "Binaries may die
> WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh>  |   but source code lives forever"
> PGP: finger fjh AT 128 DOT 250 DOT 37 DOT 3        |     -- leaked Microsoft memo.
> 
> --
> Want to unsubscribe from this list?
> Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
> 
> 


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com