Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 20:04:00 -0400
Message-Id: <200005020004.UAA19429@envy.delorie.com>
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To: KendallB AT scitechsoft DOT com
CC: Cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
In-reply-to: <200005011535376.SM00160@KENDALLB>
Subject: Re: Lack of Cygwin contributors? Was: How is textmode/binmode determined ...
References: <200004301309350 DOT SM00160 AT KENDALLB>; from KendallB AT scitechsoft DOT com on Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 01:06:40PM -0800 <200005011535376 DOT SM00160 AT KENDALLB>


> If the goal of Cygwin

The goals of Cygwin were initially to simply act as a platform upon
which other free software could be run on Windows, with minimal
porting.  As such, it promotes the use of free software on Windows.

> was to make more free software available for use within
> corporations, then the LGPL license would make a lot of sense.

If the goal is to promote free software, then the GPL is preferred
over the LGPL as it gives free software an advantage over non-free
software.

> Then anyone can contribute to the project, and anyone can
> sell/support the result.

They can do that now, with the GPL.

> Cynus would have no special right over anyone else, and would have
> to compete solely on better service/support for the product, which
> is what Open Source is supposed to be all about.

That's not what open source is supposed to be all about.

> However what is really being done is here that the GPL is being
> incorrectly applied to a *library*,

That is an opinion I do not share.

> specifically because then a commercial company who wants to use
> Cygwin in a non-Open Source manner has no choice but to purchase an
> expensive license.

Of course they have a choice.  They can choose to convert to free
software.  That's one of the goals of the FSF and the GPL - to
convince people to adopt free software ideals.

> What is worse however is that there is 
> *ABSOLUTELY NO COMPETITION* because no other Open Source company will have 
> the rights to do the same thing. Hence if *I* decided I wanted to create a 
> company and sell/support a Cygwin derivative based on my 
> changes/modifications I can't. Hence I won't contribute.

But, you *can* create such a company.  The GPL guarantees you the
right to do so.

> I bet if you questioned RMS on this, he would say that he does not agree at 
> all with how Cygnus is licensing the Cygwin libraries.

I've questioned RMS about DJGPP's license, which is similar.  He says
that's OK because the recipient always has the option of using the
GPL.  Cygwin is the same way - all our customers have a right to use
and distribute cygwin under the terms of the GPL.

> Considering that there are plenty of commercial equivalents that do similar 
> things to the Cygwin libraries (Unix emulation layers on Win32), including 
> stuff now available from Microsoft, using the above philosophy the LGPL is 
> the license that really should be used for Cygwin.

Except that not all such equivalents are equivalent.  We think Cygwin
is better, and it certainly is different, enough so that the GPL
should apply by RMS's arguments.

> In this case what is being paid for here is the development work to get new 
> stuff implemented in the compiler. Personally I find it a 'bending' of the 
> rules if proprietry additions are made to GPL'ed compilers and *not* being 
> made available to the general public (even if the developer who paid for 
> the modifications does get all the source code).

The additions are not proprietary.  They are covered by the GPL, just
like the rest of the compiler.  The GPL says *nothing* about making
changes available to the general public.

> Which brings up an interesting question. Are the additions that
> Cygnus makes for commercial development made readily available to
> anyone who asks?

No.  The GPL does not require us to give sources to just anyone.  It
only requires that we give sources to those who have the binaries, and
we do.

> Are they being contributed back into the core GCC development tree?

We usually contribute all changes to the public sources after a time,
usually six to twelve months.  That gives our customers a competitive
advantage by being first, which is a valuable commodity in the
microprocessor industry.

> If they aren't, then IMHO that would be a rather large violation of
> the GPL.

No, it isn't.  Ask your lawyers to interpret the GPL for you, you're
doing a rather bad job of it.

> For instance can I get a copy of the source code for the embedded
> MIPS or PowerPC processor versions of GCC?

Yes, if you buy that set of tools from us, the sources come with it.
If you do not buy those tools from us, we will not give you the
sources for it.  You picked a bad example, though, because those
versions are already in the master source tree.

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