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: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 19:29:56 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199903170029.TAA12499@brocade.nexen.com> From: Steve Morris MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: DJ Delorie cc: cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Subject: Re: Cygwin license In-Reply-To: <199903162245.RAA17348@envy.delorie.com> References: <19990316130132 DOT 20506 DOT rocketmail AT send105 DOT yahoomail DOT com> <19990316104140 DOT A1113 AT cygnus DOT com> <199903161757 DOT MAA12041 AT brocade DOT nexen DOT com> <199903162021 DOT PAA20648 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <199903162234 DOT RAA12379 AT brocade DOT nexen DOT com> <199903162245 DOT RAA17348 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> X-Mailer: VM 6.31 under 20.2 XEmacs Lucid DJ Delorie writes: > Linux does not live on top of the HURD. On the Alpha? I had heard that it did. I don't mean the Intel Linux port. > > So if I develop code from scratch in cygwin, compile it in cygwin and > > want to distribute the binaries, free, to users of the sourceware > > version of Cygwin, Cygnus says no. Cygnus is suggesting that I don't > > have the right to give away non GPL binary code to the users of the > > cygwin development environment without giving them money for the > > privilege. All because I need to compile in the "glue" required to > > interoperate with other programs in the cygwin.dll platform. > > We don't consider cygwin to be "glue". There is a substantial amount > of work and new functionality in cygwin. Calling it "glue" is > insulting to the people who created it. Please stop puting words in my mouth. I am trying to stick to facts. No insult is intended. I do not refer to cygwin as glue and never have. It is obviously an impressive and high quality accomplishment. I am extremely glad for its existance. However it is my understanding that most of cygwin lives in the dll. The interface to this dll, i.e. the headers and the dll interface library is what I am referring to as glue. glue to connect the executable to the cygwin environment. I am not suggesting that the entire cygwin package is merely glue to win32. Those are your words, not mine. I am suggesting that the interface library and headers are legally different from the dll itself and may have different legal requirements concerning licensing. dlls are often distributed seperately from the interface "glue" to the dll. Most of the dlls in use are part of Windows. These are not considered part of the executables that use them. This is a distinction that you are ignoring. I contend that cygwin comes in two parts. 1) The cygwin.dll and 2) a thin interface layer to that dll. Obviously Cygnus has full rights to control cygwin.dll. It is not so obvious that they have equivalent rights to control the interface to that dll. Interface code that provides no "value add" other than a connection to an underlying package tends to trip on interoperability requirements. The underlying package can be controlled but the interface usually can't. Wether it is in this case is a matter of law, possibly untested law. > We wrote a piece of software > that *adds functionality* to Windows. If you want to use that > functionality, you must abide by our terms. Only if those terms are legally enforcable. That is the subject under discussion. Licenses only make sense in a legal context. Just like a manufacturer cannot disclaim all warrenty for their products, Cygnus cannot arbitrarily restrict use of their code. Whether this particular restriction on the interface to the dll is legally valid is the topic under discussion. It may be. Cygnus clearly believes it to be so. That doesn't prove it. > You're grasping at straws. The fact that the user has N cygwin > programs on their machine already doesn't change the fact that your > program uses cygwin and *includes* code from cygwin - code that does > more than just "glue" you to the OS (win32). I am not grasping at straws. Please bring this conversation back to the level of discussing facts and relevent opinions. I am eithor right or wrong. In neithor case should you insult me. Counter my arguement if you think I am wrong but please leave out the personal attacks. I am merely stating my honestly held understanding. In some sense I am a disinterested outsider since I have no plans to or interest in providing non sourceware packages that run under Cygwin. (I speak as if I did but that is merely a hypothetical.) However I do not GPL my code. I provide an unlimited source license to it with the usual disclaimers. I merely happen to be an outsider who has some level of understanding of the law. It is interpretation of the law that we are discussing. Your persistance in misinterpreting my position has strengthened my desire to make that position more clear, otherwise I would have dropped out of this conversation and left it to interested parties. To the extent that I have any interest at all I would like to see Cygnus make money out of cygwin. I would pay a moderate fee for its personal use at home. I would recommend to employers that they license cygwin from Cygnus. In the past I have even provailed on a similar recomendation for the Cygnus gcc cross tools. However I also believe that the interoperability issue applies to cygwin. So in summary: 1) I am not suggesting that Cygnus cannot control distribution of the dll. 2) I don't think that cygwin is a trivial glue layer. My opinion is quite to the contrary. 3) I wish Cygnus well and hope they make as much money as the law allows. 4) I believe that it is possible that the law would allow the unlimited distribution of code linked only to the dll interface as long as the dll itself was not part of the distribution. The end user then has the obligation to follow the cygwin GPL requirements, i.e. they must legally acquire its use. 5) I believe that challenging legal positions has as much use and validity as testing the security of encription or access. The law must be challenged to be useful. Cygnus needs to stand on a strong legal basis or it will not stand at all. Similarly software security must be tested to find weaknesses. In neithor case is ill will involved. Offense is not intended and shouldn't be taken. You would not be offended if I suggested that there was an authentication flaw in cygwin software. You shouldn't be offended if I similarly suggest that there is a flaw in cygwin licensing. Both are merely theories which need testing and possible bug fixing. -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com