Cygwin license

Chris Faylor
Wed Mar 31 19:45:00 GMT 1999

On Tue, Mar 16, 1999 at 12:57:28PM -0500, Steve Morris wrote:
>Chris Faylor writes:
> > >I agree with this.  If an Open Source tool used as an aid in porting
> > >code from one platform to another doesn't allow me to honor the
> > >license of the code I'm porting; of what use is it to be Open Source? 
> > >Since the first time I saw this discussed I've been uneasy about the
> > >license conflicts.  If you (Cygnus) refuse to change the license to
> > >LGPL (which I and many others think should be done) at least supply
> > >exceptions in such cases as these.
> > 
> > I don't know if you've been following RMS's thoughts on the subject but
> > he essentially thinks that the FSF made a mistake with the LGPL.
>I have seldom found RMS's thoughts to be compelling. You always have
>to take his adgenda into account and his adgenda is quite complex. I
>do suspect that without LGPL gcc would be a minor player. Every
>deveoper I have ever met that volunteered to work on gcc cut their gcc
>teeth using gcc in a place of employment that used gcc to create
>licensed binary distributed code. These people wouldn't be part of the
>free software movement without LGPL. I think RMS wants to have it both
>ways, the broad distribution that comes with people using gcc
>commercially plus the forcing of software into the free software
>domain. He doesn't like to admit the part that binary distributors
>play in supporting free software. 

FYI, gcc is not LGPLed.   Gcc is GPLed.


Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to

More information about the Cygwin mailing list