This is the mail archive of the
cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Cygnus Cygwin32 Press Release 1/21/97
- To: gnu-win32 at cygnus dot com
- Subject: Re: Cygnus Cygwin32 Press Release 1/21/97
- From: scottk at utig dot ig dot utexas dot edu (Scott Kempf)
- Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 15:58:17 -0600 (CST)
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@cygnus.com" with one line of text: "help".