Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>, <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 22:01:27 -0400
Message-Id: <200005020201.WAA20317@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: <200005011901823.SM00160@KENDALLB>
Subject: Re: Lack of Cygwin contributors? Was: How is textmode/binmode determined  ...
References: <200005011535256 DOT SM00160 AT KENDALLB> <200005011901823 DOT SM00160 AT KENDALLB>


> For FSF projects this is specifically so that they control the 
> copyright on all source code, and can ensure the source would never 
> be used for commercial purposes.

No, they do it so they can sue violators, and protect themselves
against lawsuits by contributors' employers.  The GPL alone is enough
to meet the goals you list; the Linux kernel is multi-owned and is
*less* likely to be used for proprietary purposes (legally) than, say,
gcc.

The fact that the FSF is the *only* copyright holder for gcc means
that they *could*, if properly motivated, allow it to be used in a
non-free way.  This is impossible for the Linux kernel, because there
are so many copyright holders and they'd never all agree on something
like that.

Also, "commercial" vs "proprietary".  The FSF *encourages* commercial
use of free software.  What they discourage is proprietary use of it.

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