This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
RE: On Cygwin package naming and a setup.exe bug
- To: "'cygwin at cygwin dot com'" <cygwin at cygwin dot com>
- Subject: RE: On Cygwin package naming and a setup.exe bug
- From: Bernard Dautrevaux <Dautrevaux at microprocess dot com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 20:01:59 +0200
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 7:39 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: On Cygwin package naming and a setup.exe bug
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 04:39:46AM -0600, Warren Young wrote:
> >Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >> >On our
> >> >SourceForge downloads page we distribute a source
> tarball, a few binary
> >> >RPMs, and a Cygwin binary package.
> >> And a cygwin source package, hopefully, if you want to be
> in compliance
> >> with the GPL.
> >Not so. Section 3c of the GPL exempts noncommercial
> distributors from
> >having to carry the source. They can simply point you to where they
> >downloaded the code themselves.
> You mean this section:
> c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
> to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
> allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
> received the program in object code or executable form with such
> an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
> Who made the offer to continue to include the sources to whatever is
> being distributed? Not me. I don't want to have to track the PRC
> project and make sure that I don't delete, say, the Cygwin 1.3.2
> sources because they are still using them.
I think there'(s a bit of misunderstanding here: What john says was that it
several binary distributions of PRC-tools (as cygwin tarballs and
one source distribution of PRC-tools (as a source tarball)
He thus complies with the GPL.
Note that he explicitely says he was NOT distributing Cygwin, just provide a
proper setup.ini so that the setup.exe used to install Cygwin from the
official cygwin web site (or any other source AFAAIC).
I don't see where there would be ANY GPL concern with this (although, as
> >You shouldn't give John a hard time; the PRC-Tools project is a free
> >software project in much the same spirit as Cygwin. In fact, the two
> >projects are very similar: a GCC port to a non-Unix
> platform, for making
> >binaries native to that platform.
> "Why are you giving me a hard time! I'm a free software
> project!". Yes,
> we hear this from time to time. The GPL is a legal binding document.
> If you want to use it, you should be in compliance with it. You don't
> get to ignore it because you consider yourself "one of the good guys".
> It would be nice if life worked that way, but it doesn't.
IMHO John is perfectly complying with the GPL. What I would say is, rather
than "don't be ruide with me, I'm a free project programmer" would be "Don't
start thinking I will not comply with the GPL for your product; I'm already
complying for mine, so check before ranting :-)"
> >Now, if John were still working for Palm and posting from a palm.com
> >address, you'd be justified in being picky about the GPL.
> But he's not,
> >and you shouldn't.
I'm not sure I agree; there is people working for commercial companies
producing GPL code and complying with the GPL; I think you know some :-)
> >> Not surprising since this isn't a goal for setup.exe.
> It's really only
> >> intended to install cygwin packages.
> >What makes PRC-Tools "not a Cygwin package" and, say, tcltk "a Cygwin
> >package"? Both are programming language systems that live within the
> >Cygwin environment.
> The PRC-Tools are not distributed from the cygwin web site. They are
> not an official cygwin package. Do I really have to explain this?
So, setup.exe is *restricted* to install *official* cygwin packages? a bit
too harsh I think.
> >> I've got mixed feelings about putting concessions for
> >> other packages in setup. It isn't really supposed to be a
> general purpose
> >> installation tool.
> >Keep in mind, this isn't a case of using setup.exe to install a
> >standalone package. PRC-Tools on Windows is always used
> inside a Cygwin
> >environment. John is just trying to make it simpler to make
> a PRC-Tools
> >distribution tarball that Cygwin's own installation tools will accept
> >and install.
> Yes, that was perfectly clear. Obviously, the whole reason
> for contacting
> the cygwin mailing list was that PRC tools use Cygwin. That
> makes them
> a package that uses cygwin. It doesn't automatically make
> them an official
> cygwin package. Any more than saying that some package that uses RPM
> is an official part of the Red Hat distribution.
> It apparently isn't clear to you that "Cygwin's own
> installation tools"
> were meant to install, um, the cygwin packages from the
> cygwin web site
> and mirrors. They don't have accomodations for using other
> web sites or
> being bundled as part of a larger package. That is what I was saying
Was that a "for now and ever" position, and are then patches to allow to
install "unofficial" cygwin packages with setup.exe forcibly refused?
I personally would have think of setup.exe as *the* tool to manage a cygwin
installation, like rpm is *the* tool to manage a Red Hat linux install or
addpkg is *the* tool to manage a Solaris (or is it an HPux) system. That,
for me, has meant that i should try to provide my own packages in a form
suitable for installation/uninstallation by setup.exe.
If I'm wrong, I will then try to use RPM or some other fancy installer and
have to tinker it to be able to pick cygwin configuration data so that I
install my package in a sensible way, with sensible defaults, in an exsiting
cygwin install... Phew, do I really need to do that? ;-(
97 bis, rue de Colombes
Tel: +33 (0) 1 47 68 80 80
Fax: +33 (0) 1 47 88 97 85
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html