This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Lack of Cygwin contributors? Was: How is textmode/binmode determined ...
> I simply will *not* contribute to Cygwin because I am not interested
> in contributing to a project that forces a particular license on
*All* projects force some license on developers. It's a side effect
of copyright laws.
> and more importantly that gives one company the right to make money
> from Cygwin through non-GPL licensing.
Without such funding, Cygwin wouldn't exist.
> I won't have any part of an Open Source project that attempts to
> force the GPL (or an Open Source license in the updated licensing)
> on *other* projects, which is exactly what Cygwin does, unless you
> purchase a commercial license.
Nobody forces the GPL on other projects. You either choose to use the
GPL'd component, and accept the GPL, or you do not. It is your
> I am sorry, but do you really expect developers to contribute to a
> project with such draconian licensing?
Yes! Many do. It's unfortunate that you do not understand why, or
how they benefit from such participation. As for it being draconian,
I've seen much worse in proprietary licenses.
> I am not going to spend my free time making Cygwin better so that
> Cygus/Red Hat can sell commercial licenses of it and make money from
> *my* fixes and/or enhancements.
OK, don't. Maybe some day you'll spend your free time making Cygwin
better so that you can have a better Cygwin to use for your own
purposes, like most people do. Until then, we don't want you to be
uncomfortable with your participation in our project.
> If you *really* want more contributions to Cygwin, then open it up.
The GPL makes it as open as we can make it, without endangering
people's abililty to use the software.
> Fully. Go ahead and *level* the playing field.
Huh? I missed this one. If we stopped offering the commercial
license, how would that help the cygwin community?
> Put the Cygwin
> components under the LGPL license
The FSF has requested that the LGPL not be used for new projects, and
is discouraged in general. Assuming the FSF speaks for the community,
swithing to the LGPL would only hurt the community by doing less to
encourage the adoption of free software principles.
> so that it can be used with any project,
You mean, you want to make money off cygwin, but not let us make
money off cygwin?
> Sure by opening thing up in this way you would open up the project
> to competition.
We already have competition. I'm not sure how what you propose would
increase the ability for others to compete.
> Some other company and/or individual could take the sources, build a
> 'Cygwin' compatible distribution and distribute/sell/support it.
They already can, and do.
> But if they did, you would also benefit as everything they did with
> it would have to be Open Source also.
That is already true. I don't see how what you propose would change
> The whole point of the Open Source development model is supposed to
> be that the entire source code is open and available for use by
Not true. The point is that *if* you have the software, you have the
right to modify it to suit your needs. Open Source and Free Software
are about freedom, not charity.
> and that no particular company and/or invididual has any special
> rights over anyone else.
Also not true. The copyright holder always has the right to
distribute a new copy under different terms.
> If you want to make money from the Open Source project, you sell
> support, branding and distribution services.
We do that also.
> Red Hat gets this and that is how the entire Red Hat Linux
> distribution works.
We *are* Red Hat.
> Red Hat has also been re-branded and distributed by other companies
> like Mandrake, but this hasn't been a problem for Red Hat. Now that
> Cygnus is a part of Red Hat, perhaps it is time for Cygnus to get it
Anyone can re-brand and re-distribute Cygwin as well. The GPL
> I don't believe for a minute that DJGPP or EMX would have ever
> become as popular as they have if it was not possible to build
> *anything* with them.
DJGPP is also a lot less free than Cygwin. Someone could build
something with DJGPP, *not* distribute the sources, and it would be
proprietary. How would that help the DJGPP community?
> If you want to be Open Source, don't sit on the damn fence.
We don't. We distribute Cygwin under the GPL to *everyone*, which is
as open as it gets. I don't see how we can guarantee you more freedom
than the GPL does.
> But most of all don't try to disguise a proprietry product and hope
> that Open Source developers will be duped into helping with it.
Cygwin is, by definition, *not* proprietary. *Anyone* with a copy of
cygwin is allowed to distribute it under the GPL, whether they buy a
proprietary-use license or not. The proprietary-use license simply
allows customers who do not wish to meet the GPL to choose an
alternate way of benefiting the community, while serving their own
needs as well. Funds from such licenses are used to hire programmers,
like Chris, Corinna, and I, so that we can continue working on cygwin,
which is then available to the community. If we don't sell such
licenses, then there would be less cygwin development. How would that
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to email@example.com