Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Jonathan Pryor]

Earnie Boyd <earnie_boyd@yahoo.com> wrote:

>---Greg Miller <gmiller@classic-games.com> wrote:
>>
>> Michael Weiser wrote:
>> > Why? Someone who can't do a tar -xzvf will also be unable to use
>> > cygwin after install. It's the old thread which shows up here
>> > regularly and I'm one of those who want tar's or even better rpm's.
>> 
>> Except that the above tar command isn't equivalent to a full
>> InstallShield executable. Further, many cygwin users just want to run
>> one or two pieces of UNIX software, not use a full simulation of UNIX.
>
>You've just given a perfectly good reason why _NOT_ to use
>InstallShield.  With InstallShield, unless the packager has provided
>for it, you can't just pick and choose like you would be able to with
>tar.

Why don't we have the "best of both worlds"?

I like the idea of tar files.  I also like the idea of an 
InstallShield setup to specify which parts to install (via
a Custom install option).

Wouldn't it be possible to have tarballs, and have InstallShield
extract the tarballs as part of its installation?  Then both 
groups can be satisified, and it shouldn't be too much more
difficult to do...(at least, I wouldn't think it so, but I've
been wrong before...)

For the record, I also would like to have a CD with almost
everything on it.  It would certainly make re-installing
"the world" easier...  :-)

Would it be possible to place mingw32 on the CD as well?
I don't remember seeing this raised as an option, but I 
would find it useful to have it on the CD...

 - Jon


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

[FYI] Cygwin DEV distribution

[Stipe Tolj]

Here is another goodie:

Since I have tested our Apache 1.3.4 port contained within the latest
CAMP 1.1b release on Windows NT and it seems to be running very reliable
we have been thinking of making (hopefully if ever) the Cygwin DEV
available on a Cygwin dedicated Windows NT machine running our latest
Apache port connected via 2x2 Mbit lines to the net.

Before considering to serve such a big package via Cygwin on top of NT
we will do some benchmarking to figure out that performance can be made.
If it seems unsatisfying we will switch to a Linux/FreeBSD machine using
our companies 2x2 Mbit line or leave it on the current IBM AIX provided
from the Mathematical Institute of the University of Cologne.

I suppose the load of the machine will be *extremly* high within the
first week after releasing such a package. Therefore I would like to ask
people to think about the ability to provide mirror sites (basicly one
per continent) for it.

The start for getting Cygwin DEV realized has been scheduled for this
week-end!

And now cut this thread and back to common Cygwin problems!!

Regards,
Stipe 

-- 
Stipe Tolj <tolj@uni-duesseldorf.de>

Cygwin Porting Project -- "We build UNIX on top of Windows"
http://www.student.uni-koeln.de/cygwin

Department of Economical Computer Science        
University of Cologne, Germany


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Stipe Tolj]

Jonathan Pryor wrote:

> Why don't we have the "best of both worlds"?
> 
> I like the idea of tar files.  I also like the idea of an
> InstallShield setup to specify which parts to install (via
> a Custom install option).
> 
> Wouldn't it be possible to have tarballs, and have InstallShield
> extract the tarballs as part of its installation?  Then both
> groups can be satisified, and it shouldn't be too much more
> difficult to do...(at least, I wouldn't think it so, but I've
> been wrong before...)

actualy this is want we intended, even if it isn't exactly what you
want. On a fresh non-Cygwin installed Win32 system InstallShield should
be used to install actualy Cygwin and all other pre-compiled compontents
via custom install options and all port sources should we provided as
tarballs for re-compilation purposes.

> For the record, I also would like to have a CD with almost
> everything on it.  It would certainly make re-installing
> "the world" easier...  :-)
> 
> Would it be possible to place mingw32 on the CD as well?
> I don't remember seeing this raised as an option, but I
> would find it useful to have it on the CD...

As the thread says, it should be considered as Cygwin Development
Environment and hence there hasn't been any Mingw32 support intended, at
least for the first release.

Anyway our pre-defined limit of one CD size will be very soon out of
space when you consider that we will provide all full port sources of
the pre-compiled components. Startig with the Cygwin sources itself and
mandatory components like X11R6.4 from Sergey, binutils, inetutils and
the whole /usr/local suite of Andy Piper.

Regards,
Stipe

-- 
Stipe Tolj <tolj@uni-duesseldorf.de>

Cygwin Porting Project -- "We build UNIX on top of Windows"
http://www.student.uni-koeln.de/cygwin

Department of Economical Computer Science        
University of Cologne, Germany



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Stipe Tolj]

Jonathan Pryor wrote:

> Why don't we have the "best of both worlds"?
> 
> I like the idea of tar files.  I also like the idea of an
> InstallShield setup to specify which parts to install (via
> a Custom install option).
> 
> Wouldn't it be possible to have tarballs, and have InstallShield
> extract the tarballs as part of its installation?  Then both
> groups can be satisified, and it shouldn't be too much more
> difficult to do...(at least, I wouldn't think it so, but I've
> been wrong before...)

actualy this is want we intended, even if it isn't exactly what you
want. On a fresh non-Cygwin installed Win32 system InstallShield should
be used to install actualy Cygwin and all other pre-compiled compontents
via custom install options and all port sources should we provided as
tarballs for re-compilation purposes.

> For the record, I also would like to have a CD with almost
> everything on it.  It would certainly make re-installing
> "the world" easier...  :-)
> 
> Would it be possible to place mingw32 on the CD as well?
> I don't remember seeing this raised as an option, but I
> would find it useful to have it on the CD...

As the thread says, it should be considered as Cygwin Development
Environment and hence there hasn't been any Mingw32 support intended, at
least for the first release.

Anyway our pre-defined limit of one CD size will be very soon out of
space when you consider that we will provide all full port sources of
the pre-compiled components. Startig with the Cygwin sources itself and
mandatory components like X11R6.4 from Sergey, binutils, inetutils and
the whole /usr/local suite of Andy Piper.

Regards,
Stipe

-- 
Stipe Tolj <tolj@uni-duesseldorf.de>

Cygwin Porting Project -- "We build UNIX on top of Windows"
http://www.student.uni-koeln.de/cygwin

Department of Economical Computer Science        
University of Cologne, Germany



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Jonathan Pryor]

Earnie Boyd <earnie_boyd@yahoo.com> wrote:

>---Greg Miller <gmiller@classic-games.com> wrote:
>>
>> Michael Weiser wrote:
>> > Why? Someone who can't do a tar -xzvf will also be unable to use
>> > cygwin after install. It's the old thread which shows up here
>> > regularly and I'm one of those who want tar's or even better rpm's.
>> 
>> Except that the above tar command isn't equivalent to a full
>> InstallShield executable. Further, many cygwin users just want to run
>> one or two pieces of UNIX software, not use a full simulation of UNIX.
>
>You've just given a perfectly good reason why _NOT_ to use
>InstallShield.  With InstallShield, unless the packager has provided
>for it, you can't just pick and choose like you would be able to with
>tar.

Why don't we have the "best of both worlds"?

I like the idea of tar files.  I also like the idea of an 
InstallShield setup to specify which parts to install (via
a Custom install option).

Wouldn't it be possible to have tarballs, and have InstallShield
extract the tarballs as part of its installation?  Then both 
groups can be satisified, and it shouldn't be too much more
difficult to do...(at least, I wouldn't think it so, but I've
been wrong before...)

For the record, I also would like to have a CD with almost
everything on it.  It would certainly make re-installing
"the world" easier...  :-)

Would it be possible to place mingw32 on the CD as well?
I don't remember seeing this raised as an option, but I 
would find it useful to have it on the CD...

 - Jon


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

[FYI] Cygwin DEV distribution

[Stipe Tolj]

Here is another goodie:

Since I have tested our Apache 1.3.4 port contained within the latest
CAMP 1.1b release on Windows NT and it seems to be running very reliable
we have been thinking of making (hopefully if ever) the Cygwin DEV
available on a Cygwin dedicated Windows NT machine running our latest
Apache port connected via 2x2 Mbit lines to the net.

Before considering to serve such a big package via Cygwin on top of NT
we will do some benchmarking to figure out that performance can be made.
If it seems unsatisfying we will switch to a Linux/FreeBSD machine using
our companies 2x2 Mbit line or leave it on the current IBM AIX provided
from the Mathematical Institute of the University of Cologne.

I suppose the load of the machine will be *extremly* high within the
first week after releasing such a package. Therefore I would like to ask
people to think about the ability to provide mirror sites (basicly one
per continent) for it.

The start for getting Cygwin DEV realized has been scheduled for this
week-end!

And now cut this thread and back to common Cygwin problems!!

Regards,
Stipe 

-- 
Stipe Tolj <tolj@uni-duesseldorf.de>

Cygwin Porting Project -- "We build UNIX on top of Windows"
http://www.student.uni-koeln.de/cygwin

Department of Economical Computer Science        
University of Cologne, Germany


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Stipe Tolj]

Michael Hirmke wrote:
> 
> Hi DJ,
> 
> [...]
> >> and all the other ports available at ftp.franken.de
> >
> >Warning: I've not seen full sources on ftp.franken.de, which is a
> >violation of the GPL.  You'll have to get the sources those packages
> 
> Really? I thought, a pointer to the location of the sources would be
> sufficient!?! Besides that IMHO you have to provide the sources *on*
> *request*! For many of the packages there are in fact also source
> packages in the same directory - there are no sources on ftp.franken.de
> for packages, where the orginal source package has been used without
> modifications. In this case there is only a pointer to a location, where
> you can get the sources.
> If not, please tell me, what I have to do to fullfill the GPL! There was
> no intention to violate it.

As I mentioned in a previous mail. RedHat and SuSE don't provide ALL
sources for the pre-compiled binaries, so there is some kind of conflict
here towards GPL.

We would like to put a collection of software to a CD like RedHat and
SuSE do, if this is violating GPL, so why do they.

Regards,
Stipe

-- 
Stipe Tolj <tolj@uni-duesseldorf.de>
Cygwin Porting Project
Department of Economical Computer Science        
University of Cologne, Germany                  
http://www-public.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de/~tolj



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[DJ Delorie]

> I have planned this for about a year and now I would like to hear
> from other cygwin users what they think about it. Mostly I'm
> interested in the opinion of the cygwin core developers.
>
> We would like to compile a set of files containing
> 
>     - latest cygwin full.exe distrbution
>     - latest pre-compiled egcs replacement

No problem here, these are all GPL.  Just remember that you must
include all the sources that go with them.  This means that if you
have multiple copies of the cygwin dll, you must have multiple copies
of the sources for the dll as well.

I strongly recommend reading the DJGPP FAQ about redistribution for
some things that djgpp has "noticed" over the years about how to put
together a well-received distribution of something like djgpp or
cygwin.

>     - latest cygwin-snapshots

I wouldn't recommend this, except perhaps to put them in a directory
that's clearly labelled EXPERIMENTAL.  We don't even check these
snapshots before posting them, and except for the ChangeLogs there's
no documentation about them.

>     - pre-compiled libraries and headers for /usr/local/include and
> /usr/local/lib
>         - like X11R6.4, crypt, ncurses, gmp, readline, gd, ...
>     - pre-compiled applications for /usr/local/
>         - like X11R6.4, XEmacs, LyX, GIMP, mSQL, PostgreSQL, Apache,
> inetutils, ssh

Be careful about distribution terms.  Anything compiled with cygwin
must be distributed under the terms of the GPL - not just the terms of
the application itself.  This means that *all* applications on the CD
*must* include full sources, not just patches.  You can't distribute
anything whose distribution terms are incompatible with the GPL.

Also, ssh can't be exported from the USA and other countries might
have restrictions also.  Safest to just leave it off.

> and all the other ports available at ftp.franken.de

Warning: I've not seen full sources on ftp.franken.de, which is a
violation of the GPL.  You'll have to get the sources those packages
were compiled with, verify that the sources you have actually build
the executables you are distributing (usually by rebuilding), and ship
them together.

>     - any available sources for the pre-compiled cygwin ports

That should be *all*, if you are distributing the binaries for them.
The GPL requires it.

>     - cygwin documentation

No problem here, I think.  There isn't much anyway :(

>     - a HTML mirror of the complete mailing list contents

Good luck.  Please don't mirror my site, as that would put a pretty
heavy load on my server, and the URLs won't be valid Win32 file names
(they have colons in them, and are cgi-generated).  There are about
22,000 messages, which would mean 22,000 hits to a *cgi* on my server
to download them all.  I don't see the benefit to this either, since
the web versions have search engines and are continuously updated.

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

RE: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Smith, Martin]

I think this is an excellent idea and, as Tripp says, several people
probably already have this on their long-term to-do list :-)

Here are a few other thoughts/suggestions. Feel free to reject them if they
are not appropriate ! I realise there are a lot of suggestions here but
there's no need to do them all at once (or at all for that matter) - a core
CD package would be fine with me :-)

*	What about text/binary mounts - I get the feeling binary mounts are
preferred for most applications but, by default, the Cygnus tools install
with text mounts. Is it wise to change this to binary for a 'development'
install or not?
*	What about environment variables? At the moment these are in a batch
file but I usually add them to my NT environment and call Bash directly. Is
this appropriate? What about other settings like term etc? Is there any
"best" environment?
*	Once installed, how best to manage updates to included packages? Is
there any advantage to using RPM or would it be best to stick with
tarballs/diff/patch initially? I don't think many people are using any form
of package management on cygwin yet but perhaps this would be useful?
*	Would this include helper scripts like the modified "install" which
many packages need to cope with .exe extensions? I'm sure there have been a
few more handy scripts/wrappers on this list as well.
*	Would/could it set up /bin, /etc mounts as well as the default ones
provided by Cygwin?
*	It would be handy if it could (eventually) offer to set inetutils up
for you as well (as an NT service if you are on NT). Don't know how feasible
this one is...
*	Of course, using InstallShield, you could offer some of these as
options under "Custom" setup.

Anyway, that's enough from me. I certainly support this suggestion and think
it would be a good way of allowing more people to get up & running with the
Cygwin tools without having to go through the regular FAQ session first :-)
If you need a Beta tester for any of this, let me know ;-)

Regards,
	Martin

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Stipe Tolj [SMTP:tolj@uni-duesseldorf.de]
> Sent:	Sunday, March 07, 1999 5:08 PM
> To:	Cygwin
> Subject:	[ANN] Cygwin DEV survey
> 
> I have planned this for about a year and now I would like to hear from
> other cygwin users what they think about it. Mostly I'm interested in
> the opinion of the cygwin core developers.
> 
> We would like to compile a set of files containing
> 
>     - latest cygwin full.exe distrbution
>     - latest pre-compiled egcs replacement
>     - latest cygwin-snapshots
>     - pre-compiled libraries and headers for /usr/local/include and
> /usr/local/lib
>         - like X11R6.4, crypt, ncurses, gmp, readline, gd, ...
>     - pre-compiled applications for /usr/local/
>         - like X11R6.4, XEmacs, LyX, GIMP, mSQL, PostgreSQL, Apache,
> inetutils, ssh
> 
> and all the other ports available at ftp.franken.de
> 
>     - any available sources for the pre-compiled cygwin ports
>     - cygwin documentation
>     - a HTML mirror of the complete mailing list contents
> 
> to a Cygwin DEV (Development Environment) CD-ROM like the RedHat or SuSE
> Linux distributions. This package should enable users to install Cygwin
> on a clean Win32 system with all required software allready available
> via CD.
> 
> Currently all files should fit on a single CD. There won't be a CD
> distribution (at least for now), but we will provide the complete set of
> files for burning such a CD from our web site (and hopefully some
> mirrors around the world).
> 
> We would like to use the latest InstallShield version, so new users may
> install the base Cygwin b20.1 distrbition and any other components very
> modular via InstallShield selection windows.
> 
> Any comments towards this idea are very welcome.
> 
> Regards,
> Stipe
> 
> --
> Stipe Tolj <tolj@uni-duesseldorf.de>
> 
> Cygwin Porting Project -- "We build UNIX on top of Windows"
> http://www.student.uni-koeln.de/cygwin/
> 
> Department of Economical Computer Science
> University of Cologne, Germany
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Want to unsubscribe from this list?
> Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Michael Weiser]

Hello Stipe, you wrote:
>> > *     Of course, using InstallShield, you could offer some of these as
>> > options under "Custom" setup.
>> 8<
>> Yuk.  Just give me a tarball please.
>the cygwin port packages will be available as tarballs for after-install
>use, but the basic installation procedure for core cygwin and all
>pre-compiled packages will be within InstallShield since it is a very
>powerfull tool for such purposes on Win32 systems and new cygwin users
>should be more familiar with InstallShield than saying "tar xfz
>foo.tar.gz" within a non-DOS bash shell.
Why? Someone who can't do a tar -xzvf will also be unable to use
cygwin after install. It's the old thread which shows up here
regularly and I'm one of those who want tar's or even better rpm's.

>> I like the idea, too.  However, it is a given that you'll never
>> satisfy everyone and if you're too lazy to read do the FAQ session
>> then you're going to be too lazy to read any other installation manual
>> as well.  I can just hear the questions now, "I just got this CD and
>> I'm trying to ...". ;^)
>Hmmm, that's why we want to build the CD environment as clean as
>possible, like SuSE does it with the latest 6.0 release. Mainly all
>packages should work after installation. Support for re-compiling the
>packages will be very limited.
If recompiling support is limited, then you'll immediately be
violating the GPL (according to DJ Delorie).

BTW: SuSE is getting worse with every release. :-|
-- 
bye, Michael

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Suhaib M. Siddiqi]

>
> What happens if those sources go away?  You immediately violate the
> GPL if/when that happens. >>
>
>I understand the reasons for these requirements, but IMHO they are
>unnecessarily burdensome for the case of packages which come from mirrors
of
>ftp.gnu.org, where we have reasonable assurance they may always be found
>easily.  In addition, if someone wants the source, they may also wish to be
>checking for a more up to date version, so they will need to go to the gnu
>mirror anyway.
>

Licensing is a different issue.  If I want source, then I do not worry about
precompiled version.  I would rather compile it myself.



>--
>Want to unsubscribe from this list?
>Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com
>
>


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Greg Miller]

DJ Delorie wrote:
> The reason I specified full sources for all application is because
> when you build an application with cygwin, the resulting binary always
> includes sources from cygwin (namely, the startup code and import
> library stubs), so all applications thus compiled must be distributed
> under the terms of the GPL.

Possibly. American courts have *sometimes* held that, for purposes of
interoperation with other software and/or hardware, you can ignore
licensing terms/copyrights that would prevent that interoperation. Has
the GPL ever been tested in an appeals court for Windows .DLLs and the
associated .LIB files? If not, we're guessing what would happen.
-- 
http://www.classic-games.com/
President Clinton was acquitted; then again, so was O. J. Simpson.
*** NEWBIES: Limit signatures to four lines! No HTML mail or posts! ***

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Greg Miller]

Steve Morris wrote:
> Hmmm... To expand a little the mentioned rulings might suggest that
> one has the right to distribute software that will run under cygwin
> even if it means using some otherwise copy protected software. As an
> example Microsoft can't restrict the use of code that is required to
> write a Windows application, even if they hold the copyright on that
> code.

Possibly so, although I'm not aware of any such cases that have involved
Microsoft.

> 
> If this were applicable it would mean that Cygnus does not have the
> right to restrict distribution of code that runs under Cygwin by
> restricting the inclusion of copyrighted code necessary to run under
> cygwin. This would suggest that while Cygnus has the right to control
> and restrict cygwin itself it cannot similarly control the glue
> required to run under cygwin.

Correct.

> 
> Of course cygwin is not Windows. Restricting distribution of software
> running under a monopoly environment like Windows is a lot different
> than restricting the distribution of cygwin computable software. The
> courts might rule differently in these two cases. There are legitimate
> alternatatives to cygwin in the UNIX apps on Windows market. The
> courts would probably find that relevent.

Probably not. Many of the previous cases involved software that had
strong competition, notably the Sega Genesis and several embedded
applications, such as cash register software.

> 
> All I know is that if I ever wanted to do binary distribution of
> cygwin applications (i.e. not under GPL) I would buy a license from
> Cygnus. It is probably cheaper than the lawyers fees to figure this
> out. I would rather Cygnus get the money than the lawyers.

Indeed, it's mostly just a hypothetical case--almost nobody sues over
such a questionable case.
-- 
http://www.classic-games.com/
President Clinton was acquitted; then again, so was O. J. Simpson.
*** NEWBIES: Limit signatures to four lines! No HTML mail or posts! ***

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Michael Weiser]

Hello Stipe, you wrote:
>> Also, ssh can't be exported from the USA and other countries might
>> have restrictions also.  Safest to just leave it off.
>yeah, the cryption restrictions. But what about the distributions of ssh
>and SSLeay within the SuSE distributions, they are definitly included.
>As I suppose such restrictions don't apply for Germany where our servers
>are operating.
Isn't ssh developed in Norway?
-- 
bye, Michael

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Tripp Lilley]

On Mon, 8 Mar 1999, Stipe Tolj wrote:

> As I mentioned in a previous mail. RedHat and SuSE don't provide ALL
> sources for the pre-compiled binaries, so there is some kind of conflict
> here towards GPL.

Not all of the packages they include are themselves licensed under the
GPL. Remember that the GPL covers individual pieces of software, not
collections. Thus, a CD can contain GPL'ed software and non-GPL'ed
software side by side. The GPL'ed software must include sources, the
non-GPL'ed software doesn't have this requirement.

However, in the specific case of software built for Cygwin, Cygnus'
licensing of the Cygwin CORE (ie: the DLL) is GPL, NOT LGPL. That means
that any software linked to the Cygwin DLL /must/ also be GPL'ed, unless
the authors/distributors have negotiated an alternative license with
Cygnus.

NOTE: IANAL, and IANACE (Cygnus Employee), so this is my reading of the
Cygwin License page. IASG (Smart Guy), though, so I don't think I'm off
base :-)

--
   Tripp Lilley + Innovative Workflow Engineering, Inc. + (tripp@iweinc.com)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  "When applying any correction, you should be swift, firm, without anger
   or frustration and not carry a grudge."

-- 
   jane h. kilberg in http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=448336391



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Suhaib M. Siddiqi]

>I have planned this for about a year and now I would like to hear from
>other cygwin users what they think about it. Mostly I'm interested in
>the opinion of the cygwin core developers.
>
>We would like to compile a set of files containing
>
>    - latest cygwin full.exe distrbution
>    - latest pre-compiled egcs replacement
>    - latest cygwin-snapshots
>    - pre-compiled libraries and headers for /usr/local/include and
>/usr/local/lib
>        - like X11R6.4, crypt, ncurses, gmp, readline, gd, ...
>    - pre-compiled applications for /usr/local/
>        - like X11R6.4, XEmacs, LyX, GIMP, mSQL, PostgreSQL, Apache,
>inetutils, ssh
>
>and all the other ports available at ftp.franken.de
>
>    - any available sources for the pre-compiled cygwin ports
>    - cygwin documentation
>    - a HTML mirror of the complete mailing list contents
>
>to a Cygwin DEV (Development Environment) CD-ROM like the RedHat or
SuSE
>Linux distributions. This package should enable users to install Cygwin
>on a clean Win32 system with all required software allready available
>via CD.


A CD like Red Hat and SuSE will not be violation of Cygwin GPL license?

Just a question.




>
>Currently all files should fit on a single CD. There won't be a CD
>distribution (at least for now), but we will provide the complete set
of
>files for burning such a CD from our web site (and hopefully some
>mirrors around the world).
>
>We would like to use the latest InstallShield version, so new users may
>install the base Cygwin b20.1 distrbition and any other components very
>modular via InstallShield selection windows.
>
>Any comments towards this idea are very welcome.
>
>Regards,
>Stipe
>
>--
>Stipe Tolj <tolj@uni-duesseldorf.de>
>
>Cygwin Porting Project -- "We build UNIX on top of Windows"
> http://www.student.uni-koeln.de/cygwin/
>
>Department of Economical Computer Science
>University of Cologne, Germany
>
>
>
>
>--
>Want to unsubscribe from this list?
>Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com
>
>



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Chris Faylor]

On Mon, Mar 08, 1999 at 12:33:11AM +0100, Stipe Tolj wrote:
>As you mentioned in an later mail, RedHat and SuSE are themselves
>distributed under GPL, but they had (in some cases even still do)
>distribute software which sources are not freely available, think of Qt
>from Troll Tech or the famous XForms lib.

This is possible to do with linux.  It isn't possible with cygwin.

If a program is built using the cygwin stub library (-lcygwin) it *must*
be GPLed.  This is not an optional thing.  It's a legal requirement.

This is, of course, not the case for either the linux kernel or the
linux C library.

cgf

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Stipe Tolj]

Michael Weiser wrote:

> Why? Someone who can't do a tar -xzvf will also be unable to use
> cygwin after install. It's the old thread which shows up here
> regularly and I'm one of those who want tar's or even better rpm's.

I know about the previos threads on this.

The only thing I was trying to point out is that InstallShield will be
used for first time installation (similar to YaST for SuSE) and then all
sources will be supplyed as tarbars for re-compilation purposes.

> >Hmmm, that's why we want to build the CD environment as clean as
> >possible, like SuSE does it with the latest 6.0 release. Mainly all
> >packages should work after installation. Support for re-compiling the
> >packages will be very limited.
> If recompiling support is limited, then you'll immediately be
> violating the GPL (according to DJ Delorie).

I was meaning automated support from InstallShield or any other
installation tool for the tarbars, not the ability to build them under
cygwin.

> BTW: SuSE is getting worse with every release. :-|

nop :(( I haven't experienced this mainly, except some things like the
cipe daemon :))

Regards,
Stipe

-- 
Stipe Tolj <tolj@uni-duesseldorf.de>
Cygwin Porting Project
Department of Economical Computer Science        
University of Cologne, Germany                  
http://www-public.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de/~tolj



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Michael Weiser]

Hello DJ, you wrote:
>> If recompiling support is limited, then you'll immediately be
>> violating the GPL (according to DJ Delorie).
>The GPL says that you have to have enouch sources to rebuild the apps.
>It doesn't require that the person who gave you the sources help you
>figure out how to do it.
So the question is how limited 'very limited' is if Stipe writes it.
-- 
bye, Michael

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Tripp Lilley]

On Sun, 7 Mar 1999, Suhaib M. Siddiqi wrote:

> A CD like Red Hat and SuSE will not be violation of Cygwin GPL license?
 
from http://sourceware.cygnus.com/cygwin/COPYING :

"Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
this service if you wish),"

And please put me on the "yes, it's a good idea" list, since I have on my
list of things to do "burn Cygwin install CD" :-)

--
   Tripp Lilley + Innovative Workflow Engineering, Inc. + (tripp@iweinc.com)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  "When applying any correction, you should be swift, firm, without anger
   or frustration and not carry a grudge."

-- 
   jane h. kilberg in http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=448336391



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[DJ Delorie]

> Isn't ssh developed in Norway?

Any time you put encryption software in a distribution, you have to be
extra careful about what happens to the distribution and how you word
the import/export warnings, just in case.  Sometimes it's easier to
just avoid encryption software.

Of course, this is just *my* opinion.

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Michael Hirmke]

Hi DJ,

[...]
>> and all the other ports available at ftp.franken.de
>
>Warning: I've not seen full sources on ftp.franken.de, which is a
>violation of the GPL.  You'll have to get the sources those packages

Really? I thought, a pointer to the location of the sources would be
sufficient!?! Besides that IMHO you have to provide the sources *on*
*request*! For many of the packages there are in fact also source
packages in the same directory - there are no sources on ftp.franken.de
for packages, where the orginal source package has been used without
modifications. In this case there is only a pointer to a location, where
you can get the sources.
If not, please tell me, what I have to do to fullfill the GPL! There was
no intention to violate it.

[...]

Bye.
Michael.
--
Michael Hirmke           | Telefon +49 (911) 557999
Georg-Strobel-Strasse 81 | FAX     +49 (911) 557664
90489 Nuernberg          | E-Mail  mailto:mh@mike.franken.de
                         | WWW     http://aquarius.franken.de/

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Stipe Tolj]

Tripp Lilley wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 7 Mar 1999, Suhaib M. Siddiqi wrote:
> 
> > A CD like Red Hat and SuSE will not be violation of Cygwin GPL license?
> 
> from http://sourceware.cygnus.com/cygwin/COPYING :
> 
> "Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
> have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
> this service if you wish),"
> 
> And please put me on the "yes, it's a good idea" list, since I have on my
> list of things to do "burn Cygwin install CD" :-)

nice to hear that the idea for a Cygwin CD is not limited to our short
mind brains :)) 

Regards,
Stipe

-- 
Stipe Tolj <tolj@uni-duesseldorf.de>
Cygwin Porting Project
Department of Economical Computer Science        
University of Cologne, Germany                  
http://www-public.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de/~tolj



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Michael Weiser]

Hello Stipe, you wrote:
>The only thing I was trying to point out is that InstallShield will be
>used for first time installation (similar to YaST for SuSE) and then all
>sources will be supplyed as tarbars for re-compilation purposes.
Yes, that would be an option.

>> If recompiling support is limited, then you'll immediately be
>> violating the GPL (according to DJ Delorie).
>I was meaning automated support from InstallShield or any other
>installation tool for the tarbars, not the ability to build them under
>cygwin.
Jep, agreed.
-- 
bye, Michael

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Suhaib M. Siddiqi]

-

>Hello DJ, you wrote:
>>> If recompiling support is limited, then you'll immediately be
>>> violating the GPL (according to DJ Delorie).
>>The GPL says that you have to have enouch sources to rebuild the apps.
>>It doesn't require that the person who gave you the sources help you
>>figure out how to do it.
>So the question is how limited 'very limited' is if Stipe writes it.
>--

Stipe was mentioning to RED HAT style CDROMs.  On a Red Hat Linux System,
you can basically extract the source RPM and recompile the software without
any troubles.  They supply all the Makefiles preconfigured to recompile and
produce the same binaries which are on the binary CDROM distribution.  If
that is what exactly GPL requires then I think Cygwin CD should follow same
rules and should not have any kind of limitations on recompilation of source
code.

-SMS

>bye, Michael
>
>--
>Want to unsubscribe from this list?
>Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com
>
>


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Steve Morris]

Greg Miller writes:
 > DJ Delorie wrote:
 > > The reason I specified full sources for all application is because
 > > when you build an application with cygwin, the resulting binary always
 > > includes sources from cygwin (namely, the startup code and import
 > > library stubs), so all applications thus compiled must be distributed
 > > under the terms of the GPL.
 > 
 > Possibly. American courts have *sometimes* held that, for purposes of
 > interoperation with other software and/or hardware, you can ignore
 > licensing terms/copyrights that would prevent that interoperation. Has
 > the GPL ever been tested in an appeals court for Windows .DLLs and the
 > associated .LIB files? If not, we're guessing what would happen.

Hmmm... To expand a little the mentioned rulings might suggest that
one has the right to distribute software that will run under cygwin
even if it means using some otherwise copy protected software. As an
example Microsoft can't restrict the use of code that is required to
write a Windows application, even if they hold the copyright on that
code.

If this were applicable it would mean that Cygnus does not have the
right to restrict distribution of code that runs under Cygwin by
restricting the inclusion of copyrighted code necessary to run under
cygwin. This would suggest that while Cygnus has the right to control
and restrict cygwin itself it cannot similarly control the glue
required to run under cygwin.

Of course cygwin is not Windows. Restricting distribution of software
running under a monopoly environment like Windows is a lot different
than restricting the distribution of cygwin computable software. The
courts might rule differently in these two cases. There are legitimate
alternatatives to cygwin in the UNIX apps on Windows market. The
courts would probably find that relevent.

All I know is that if I ever wanted to do binary distribution of
cygwin applications (i.e. not under GPL) I would buy a license from
Cygnus. It is probably cheaper than the lawyers fees to figure this
out. I would rather Cygnus get the money than the lawyers.

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[DJ Delorie]

> If recompiling support is limited, then you'll immediately be
> violating the GPL (according to DJ Delorie).

The GPL says that you have to have enouch sources to rebuild the apps.
It doesn't require that the person who gave you the sources help you
figure out how to do it.

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Stipe Tolj]

DJ Delorie wrote:
> 
> > I understand the reasons for these requirements, but IMHO they are
> > unnecessarily burdensome for the case of packages which come from
> > mirrors of ftp.gnu.org, where we have reasonable assurance they may
> > always be found easily.
> 
> The FSF updates their software regularly.  As soon as they remove an
> old version in favor of a new version, you've violated the GPL.
> 
> Besides, it doesn't matter if it's easy or not.  The GPL is a legal
> document which must be honored if you wish to use GPL'd software,
> regardless of whether or not you think it matters.  If you distribute
> a binary that is covered by the GNU GPL, *you* are legally *required*
> to distribute the sources that built *that* binary.  Those are the
> terms, and only the author may decide to waive them.

of course you are right. But this may be considered as an optimal
solution that doesn't match reality in some cases, like normal life
doesn't.

> > In addition, if someone wants the source, they may also wish to be
> > checking for a more up to date version, so they will need to go to
> > the gnu mirror anyway.
> 
> No, the GPL doesn't work that way.  The user must be able to get the
> sources that built *that exact binary*.  Pointing to someone else's
> FTP site that may or may not have the right version of the sources is
> not acceptable.  Where would Linux be if the FSF had decided to remove
> gcc 2.7.* from their servers, when gcc 2.8.* couldn't be used to build
> the Linux kernel?

In my opinion not a very representative example for our aims :)

Regards,
Stipe

-- 
Stipe Tolj <tolj@uni-duesseldorf.de>
Cygwin Porting Project
Department of Economical Computer Science        
University of Cologne, Germany                  
http://www-public.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de/~tolj


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[DJ Delorie]

> Maybe I need to read the GPL again but my recollection is that sources
> must be made available without additional charge.

You may charge a copying fee.  This option is available to
distributors *if* they provide a *written* offer, good for three
years, to provide the sources for that distribution, on the same media
as the distribution.  If you sell a binary CD, you must be willing to
provide a source CD anytime in the next three years.

In most cases, the cost of maintaining an archive of those sources
exceeds the cost of just delivering them with the binaries up front.

> There are many ways of meeting this requirement. For example the
> sources could be on an optional CD only provided on request. This
> used to be common when distributions were mostly on tar tape and
> expensive to generate.

It would have to be the same type of media as the binaries.  You can't
put binaries on a floppy and sources on a CD, for example.  Or, for a
more esoteric example, you can't put binaries on a CD and sources on
an 800m 1/2" tape reel or a stack of punch cards, because the user may
not be able to use them.

> Also I believe that the GPL allows you to distribute binaries on a CD
> but the sources only from a web site.

No, it does not allow this.  RMS has hinted that GPL3 maylow this,
but it still must be the *distributor's* web site.  GPL2 requires that
sources be made available via the same means as the binary.

> Many people get lazy and only provide a pointer to the sources on
> someone elses site. This does NOT meet GPL requirements unless the
> pointed to site agrees to act as the source providing agent for the
> binary distributer. For example it is not OK to say "you can get the
> sources at Cygnus" unless Cygnus agrees to this arrangement.

Correct.

> Of course this flexibility is up to the specific copyright holder of
> the software. Cygnus, as the copyright holder for Cygwin, is free to
> be flexible or not as they wish according to their own
> interpretation of their interests and the interests of the cygwin
> community.

I think we've been pretty flexible so far, but that doesn't mean
you're not breaking the law, or that we won't change our policies in
the future to be more strict.  Personally, I'll always advise people
to follow the letter and the spirit of the GPL.

> Notwithstanding the subtleties of GPL it is still preferable to get
> sources with the binary distribution and that is current common
> practice.

Yup :-)

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

RE: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Smith, Martin]

> Is it wise to change this to binary for a'development'
> > install or not?
> 8<
> 
> NO! The preferred method is text mounts.  
> 
Oops - fair enough, I wasn't sure :-) I guess this implies there are a few
packages out there aren't properly ported?

> What about environment variables? At the moment these are in a batch
> > file but I usually add them to my NT environment and call Bashdirectly.
> Is
> > this appropriate? What about other settings like term etc? Is thereany
> > "best" environment?
> 
> There are reasons why the environment variables are set in the batch
> file; that being, it works on both NT and 9x.
> 
> 
An automated install tool (like InstallShield) should be able to detect
which OS the software is being installed on and set up the appropriate
settings for each. I take the point though that this might not cover all
cases adequately.

> I prefer this method as
> to something modifying my setup files/environment.  IMNSHO, the "best"
> environment is the default one provided by the tool.  Alternates can
> be explained and possibly somewhat automated after the installation.
> 
> 8<
> > *	Once installed, how best to manage updates to included packages? Is
> > there any advantage to using RPM or would it be best to stick with
> > tarballs/diff/patch initially? I don't think many people are using
> any form
> > of package management on cygwin yet but perhaps this would be useful?
> 8<
> 
> This has been discussed many times before.  I prefer the tarball
> method while others prefer the automated installation.  If you want to
> satisfy all peoples then you have to supply both methods.
> 
[Martin]  Seems reasonable. I have RedHat Linux at home but still tend to
install a lot of stuff from tarball rather than RPM packages. 

> 8<
> > *	Would this include helper scripts like the modified "install" which
> > many packages need to cope with .exe extensions? I'm sure there have
> been a
> > few more handy scripts/wrappers on this list as well.
> 8<
> 
> Just search the archives.
> 
[Martin]  I didn't want them just now - I was just suggesting that the more
"essential" of these might make a useful addition to such a CD :-)

> 8<
> > *	Would/could it set up /bin, /etc mounts as well as the default ones
> > provided by Cygwin?
> 8<
> 
> Again, this is a preference thing.  Some prefer to use symbolic links,
> some prefer to create a different directory structure altogether and
> some prefer just using mount points.  Whatever you do as a default
> will only satisfy about 1/3 (a guess) of the preferences.
> 
[Martin]  In theory an installer could ask the user what they wanted set up
but, in practice, I agree this would probably be too much hassle. I
certainly wouldn't recommend a windows installer as a panacea for all
installation issues !

> > Anyway, that's enough from me. I certainly support this suggestion
> and think
> > it would be a good way of allowing more people to get up & running
> with the
> > Cygwin tools without having to go through the regular FAQ session
> first :-)
> 8<
> 
> I like the idea, too.  However, it is a given that you'll never
> satisfy everyone and if you're too lazy to read do the FAQ session
> then you're going to be too lazy to read any other installation manual
> as well.  I can just hear the questions now, "I just got this CD and
> I'm trying to ...". ;^)
> 
True, all the tools in one place sounds handy :-) And, as you say, as long
as people realise that this method of installation may not suit their
particular needs then there's no problem...

Regards,
	Martin

> ==
> -                        \\||//
> -------------------o0O0--Earnie--0O0o-------------------
> --                earnie_boyd@yahoo.com               --
> -- http://www.freeyellow.com/members5/gw32/index.html --
> ----------------------ooo0O--O0ooo----------------------
> 
> PS: Newbie's, you should visit my page.

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Stipe Tolj]

DJ Delorie wrote:

> >     - latest cygwin full.exe distrbution
> >     - latest pre-compiled egcs replacement
> 
> No problem here, these are all GPL.  Just remember that you must
> include all the sources that go with them.  This means that if you
> have multiple copies of the cygwin dll, you must have multiple copies
> of the sources for the dll as well.

Of course we will distrbute the full sources for the binary
distributions of cygwin. I suppose we will use the official cygwin b20.1
for binary distributions, this may be compliant to the sources.

> >     - latest cygwin-snapshots
> 
> I wouldn't recommend this, except perhaps to put them in a directory
> that's clearly labelled EXPERIMENTAL.  We don't even check these
> snapshots before posting them, and except for the ChangeLogs there's
> no documentation about them.

Of course this has been PLANNED to be labeled highly experimental, like
the Linux hacker kernel versions are. We suppose this should provide new
users an easy way to drop into the development and hence enhance the
contribution towards the cygwin project. 

> >     - pre-compiled libraries and headers for /usr/local/include and
> > /usr/local/lib
> >         - like X11R6.4, crypt, ncurses, gmp, readline, gd, ...
> >     - pre-compiled applications for /usr/local/
> >         - like X11R6.4, XEmacs, LyX, GIMP, mSQL, PostgreSQL, Apache,
> > inetutils, ssh
> 
> Be careful about distribution terms.  Anything compiled with cygwin
> must be distributed under the terms of the GPL - not just the terms of
> the application itself.  This means that *all* applications on the CD
> *must* include full sources, not just patches.  You can't distribute
> anything whose distribution terms are incompatible with the GPL.

Basicly we have planned to include any packages that re-compiles on our
development system and include full sources. Most applications fit this
restrictions.

As you mentioned in an later mail, RedHat and SuSE are themselves
distributed under GPL, but they had (in some cases even still do)
distribute software which sources are not freely available, think of Qt
from Troll Tech or the famous XForms lib.

One moment for off-topic:
FYI, the authors of xforms have provided us the full source code to
produce an cygwin b20 pre-compiled lib which has been done and will be
available soon on their distribution site.

> Also, ssh can't be exported from the USA and other countries might
> have restrictions also.  Safest to just leave it off.

yeah, the cryption restrictions. But what about the distributions of ssh
and SSLeay within the SuSE distributions, they are definitly included.
As I suppose such restrictions don't apply for Germany where our servers
are operating.


> > and all the other ports available at ftp.franken.de
> 
> Warning: I've not seen full sources on ftp.franken.de, which is a
> violation of the GPL.  You'll have to get the sources those packages
> were compiled with, verify that the sources you have actually build
> the executables you are distributing (usually by rebuilding), and ship
> them together.

That's right, not all of them include sources, but as I mentioned above,
we will only include packages whose sources have been re-compiled on our
own systems. Hence we will ask the individual porters for source supply
if the inclusion of a package is considered. 

> >     - any available sources for the pre-compiled cygwin ports
> 
> That should be *all*, if you are distributing the binaries for them.
> The GPL requires it.

And what about the binary ONLY distribution of Qt and xforms within SuSE
6.0, are they violation GPL hence?!

> >     - cygwin documentation
> 
> No problem here, I think.  There isn't much anyway :(

I suppose there may be cygwin users of the mailing list who may wish to
contribute at least mini-howtos to include for the first release.

> >     - a HTML mirror of the complete mailing list contents
> 
> Good luck.  Please don't mirror my site, as that would put a pretty
> heavy load on my server, and the URLs won't be valid Win32 file names
> (they have colons in them, and are cgi-generated).  There are about
> 22,000 messages, which would mean 22,000 hits to a *cgi* on my server
> to download them all.  I don't see the benefit to this either, since
> the web versions have search engines and are continuously updated.

We thought this may be an addition information repository since the
documentation is pretty weak. I suppose a tarball provided from
sourceware would be the best and least server loading solution.

Regards,
Stipe

-- 
Stipe Tolj <tolj@uni-duesseldorf.de>
Cygwin Porting Project
Department of Economical Computer Science        
University of Cologne, Germany                  
http://www-public.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de/~tolj



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[DJ Delorie]

> Now what about the xforms 0.881 cygwin pre-compiled port we have
> provided to the xforms authors. They will only allow distribution of the
> pre-compiled binary but not the patched cygwin port sources. This would
> mean they would violate GPL since we have used cygwin b20.1 to compile
> it?!

Yes.

The price for having a free posix environment for NT is that you must
release your sources.

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[N8TM]

In a message dated 3/7/99 12:55:04 PM Pacific Standard Time, dj@delorie.com
writes:

<< The GPL requires that *you* are responsible for
 distributing the sources.  You can't rely on someone else to
 distribute the sources unless they agree be held responsible, and even
 then you'd need to do the offer in writing.
 
 > In this case there is only a pointer to a location, where you can
 > get the sources.
 
 What happens if those sources go away?  You immediately violate the
 GPL if/when that happens. >>

I understand the reasons for these requirements, but IMHO they are
unnecessarily burdensome for the case of packages which come from mirrors of
ftp.gnu.org, where we have reasonable assurance they may always be found
easily.  In addition, if someone wants the source, they may also wish to be
checking for a more up to date version, so they will need to go to the gnu
mirror anyway.

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[DJ Delorie]

> And what about the binary ONLY distribution of Qt and xforms within SuSE
> 6.0, are they violation GPL hence?!

The GPL allows *aggregates* of software in a single distribution.  You
could put the Linux kernel and Microsoft Office on the same CD and it
wouldn't matter.  The GPL applies to applications, not the media they
are distributed on.

The reason I specified full sources for all application is because
when you build an application with cygwin, the resulting binary always
includes sources from cygwin (namely, the startup code and import
library stubs), so all applications thus compiled must be distributed
under the terms of the GPL.

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[DJ Delorie]

> A CD like Red Hat and SuSE will not be violation of Cygwin GPL license?

Redhat and SuSE are themselves distributed under the terms of the GNU
GPL.  Cygwin is distributed under the terms of the GNU GPL, so as long
as you follow the GNU GPL's terms, distributions are OK.

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Earnie Boyd]

---Greg Miller <gmiller@classic-games.com> wrote:
>
> Michael Weiser wrote:
> > Why? Someone who can't do a tar -xzvf will also be unable to use
> > cygwin after install. It's the old thread which shows up here
> > regularly and I'm one of those who want tar's or even better rpm's.
> 
> Except that the above tar command isn't equivalent to a full
> InstallShield executable. Further, many cygwin users just want to run
> one or two pieces of UNIX software, not use a full simulation of UNIX.

You've just given a perfectly good reason why _NOT_ to use
InstallShield.  With InstallShield, unless the packager has provided
for it, you can't just pick and choose like you would be able to with
tar.

I know, I know; can't this thread just die?  Well, I just couldn't
resist responding.
==
-                        \\||//
-------------------o0O0--Earnie--0O0o-------------------
--                earnie_boyd@yahoo.com               --
-- http://www.freeyellow.com/members5/gw32/index.html --
----------------------ooo0O--O0ooo----------------------

PS: Newbie's, you should visit my page.
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Steve Morris]

DJ Delorie writes:
 > 
 > > I don't think this is true.  I find no clause that says source _must_
 > > be distributed in the same means that the binaries are.  Section 3
 > > talks about distribution, but says only that the source must be "on a
 > > medium customarily used for software interchange" -- nothing about the
 > > same medium as the binary.
 > 
 > I can see a lawyer arguing that a customer who has a cdrom drive may
 > not consider the web to be "customarily used" if he/she has no
 > connection to the web.

Lawyers will argue anything but that's a stretch, even for a
lawyer. As someone with a lot of involvement with the legal field I
suggest that the courts would most likely interpret "on a medium
customarily used for software interchange" to mean customarily used in
a general sense i.e. by people who do software interchange; unless
there was specific language to the contrary. Words like customary and
reasonable, when used without qualifiers are used in the law to refer
to general practice rather than to specific practice of the parties to
the contract.

Admittedly "customarily" is ambiguous in common usage. However that
doesn't help with the interpretation. Courts generally find that
ambiguous clauses in contracts are unenforcable.

Like a lot of legal discussion there is an Angel vs. heads of pins
flavor to this conversation. I hope they include the source
regardless. It is a good idea regardless of GPL. I have often wanted
to fix a minor bug in one tiny part of a large system. Having the
sources match the binaries without doing extensive investigation of
where they live is a major benefit and well appreciated by end users.

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Suhaib M. Siddiqi]

survey


>On Sun, 7 Mar 1999, Suhaib M. Siddiqi wrote:
>
>> A CD like Red Hat and SuSE will not be violation of Cygwin GPL
license?
>
>from http://sourceware.cygnus.com/cygwin/COPYING :
>
>"Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
>have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
>this service if you wish),"
>

In that case, put me on the "yes" list too.
Suhaib


>And please put me on the "yes, it's a good idea" list, since I have on
my
>list of things to do "burn Cygwin install CD" :-)
>
>--
>   Tripp Lilley + Innovative Workflow Engineering, Inc. +
(tripp@iweinc.com)
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
>  "When applying any correction, you should be swift, firm, without
anger
>   or frustration and not carry a grudge."
>
>--
>   jane h. kilberg in http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=448336391
>
>
>
>--
>Want to unsubscribe from this list?
>Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com
>
>



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[DJ Delorie]

> >Warning: I've not seen full sources on ftp.franken.de, which is a
> >violation of the GPL.  You'll have to get the sources those packages
> 
> Really? I thought, a pointer to the location of the sources would be
> sufficient!?!

The GNU GPL version 2 requires that all the sources needed to build a
given binary be made available via the same means as the binary.  For
FTP/WWW access, this means on the same site (I asked RMS once).  The
reasons are:

* The site where you got the sources may not be reachable by someone
  who downloads the binaries from your site.

* The sources may be removed from the original site, leaving your
  binaries in violation of the GPL.  This happens often when software
  is upgraded and the old versions are removed.

RMS has hinted that GPL 3 may allow for ftp/www delivery of sources
when the binary is distributed via hard media, but the ftp/www site
must still be controlled by the distributor to ensure that the sources
remain available for the minimum required time (three years).

> Besides that IMHO you have to provide the sources *on* *request*!

Not quite.  You have to provide a *written* offer to provide the
sources.  You can't do that via ftp/www, so that option isn't
available to ftp/www binary distributions.  The only way to satisfy
the GPL when you use ftp/www is to put the sources with the binaries
so that the user can download them both at the same time.

> For many of the packages there are in fact also source packages in
> the same directory.

This is good.

> There are no sources on ftp.franken.de for packages, where the
> orginal source package has been used without modifications.

Irrelevent.  The GPL requires that *you* are responsible for
distributing the sources.  You can't rely on someone else to
distribute the sources unless they agree be held responsible, and even
then you'd need to do the offer in writing.

> In this case there is only a pointer to a location, where you can
> get the sources.

What happens if those sources go away?  You immediately violate the
GPL if/when that happens.

> If not, please tell me, what I have to do to fullfill the GPL! There was
> no intention to violate it.

Simple.  Each tar/zip containing binaries must have a corresponding
tar/zip of the sources, at the same site.  This is what djgpp does,
this is what you should do.  If you ever remove the package, you
remove both the source and binary at the same time.  When you
distribute via ftp/www, the three year offer doesn't count - the user
should download both the sources and binaries at the same time if they
want them.  They aren't required to take the sources, but you are
required to make them available whenever the binaries are available.

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

RE: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Earnie Boyd]

---"Smith, Martin" <martin@exchange.Scotland.NCR.COM> wrote:
8<
> *	What about text/binary mounts - I get the feeling binary mounts are
> preferred for most applications but, by default, the Cygnus tools
install
> with text mounts. Is it wise to change this to binary for a
'development'
> install or not?
8<

NO! The preferred method is text mounts.  That is the reason for the
default.  If a program requires binary mounts then the program isn't
properly ported.  Switching to binary mounts causes other problems. 
In a program always _SPECIFY_ whether it is to be opened for text mode
processing or binary mode processing, don't rely on the default.  A
file should be opened for text mode processing if the file can
potentially be read or created by humans with a text mode editor, such
as NOTEPAD.  All other files should be opened for binary mode
processing.

8<
> *	What about environment variables? At the moment these are in a batch
> file but I usually add them to my NT environment and call Bash
directly. Is
> this appropriate? What about other settings like term etc? Is there
any
> "best" environment?
8<

There are reasons why the environment variables are set in the batch
file; that being, it works on both NT and 9x.  I prefer this method as
to something modifying my setup files/environment.  IMNSHO, the "best"
environment is the default one provided by the tool.  Alternates can
be explained and possibly somewhat automated after the installation.

8<
> *	Once installed, how best to manage updates to included packages? Is
> there any advantage to using RPM or would it be best to stick with
> tarballs/diff/patch initially? I don't think many people are using
any form
> of package management on cygwin yet but perhaps this would be useful?
8<

This has been discussed many times before.  I prefer the tarball
method while others prefer the automated installation.  If you want to
satisfy all peoples then you have to supply both methods.

8<
> *	Would this include helper scripts like the modified "install" which
> many packages need to cope with .exe extensions? I'm sure there have
been a
> few more handy scripts/wrappers on this list as well.
8<

Just search the archives.

8<
> *	Would/could it set up /bin, /etc mounts as well as the default ones
> provided by Cygwin?
8<

Again, this is a preference thing.  Some prefer to use symbolic links,
some prefer to create a different directory structure altogether and
some prefer just using mount points.  Whatever you do as a default
will only satisfy about 1/3 (a guess) of the preferences.

8<
> *	It would be handy if it could (eventually) offer to set inetutils up
> for you as well (as an NT service if you are on NT). Don't know how
feasible
> this one is...
8<

No comment.

8<
> *	Of course, using InstallShield, you could offer some of these as
> options under "Custom" setup.
8<

Yuk.  Just give me a tarball please.

8< 
> Anyway, that's enough from me. I certainly support this suggestion
and think
> it would be a good way of allowing more people to get up & running
with the
> Cygwin tools without having to go through the regular FAQ session
first :-)
8<

I like the idea, too.  However, it is a given that you'll never
satisfy everyone and if you're too lazy to read do the FAQ session
then you're going to be too lazy to read any other installation manual
as well.  I can just hear the questions now, "I just got this CD and
I'm trying to ...". ;^)

==
-                        \\||//
-------------------o0O0--Earnie--0O0o-------------------
--                earnie_boyd@yahoo.com               --
-- http://www.freeyellow.com/members5/gw32/index.html --
----------------------ooo0O--O0ooo----------------------

PS: Newbie's, you should visit my page.
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Stipe Tolj]

Earnie Boyd wrote:
> > *     Of course, using InstallShield, you could offer some of these as
> > options under "Custom" setup.
> 8<
> 
> Yuk.  Just give me a tarball please.

the cygwin port packages will be available as tarballs for after-install
use, but the basic installation procedure for core cygwin and all
pre-compiled packages will be within InstallShield since it is a very
powerfull tool for such purposes on Win32 systems and new cygwin users
should be more familiar with InstallShield than saying "tar xfz
foo.tar.gz" within a non-DOS bash shell.

> I like the idea, too.  However, it is a given that you'll never
> satisfy everyone and if you're too lazy to read do the FAQ session
> then you're going to be too lazy to read any other installation manual
> as well.  I can just hear the questions now, "I just got this CD and
> I'm trying to ...". ;^)

Hmmm, that's why we want to build the CD environment as clean as
possible, like SuSE does it with the latest 6.0 release. Mainly all
packages should work after installation. Support for re-compiling the
packages will be very limited.

Regards,
Stipe

-- 
Stipe Tolj <tolj@uni-duesseldorf.de>
Cygwin Porting Project
Department of Economical Computer Science        
University of Cologne, Germany                  
http://www-public.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de/~tolj



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[DJ Delorie]

> > Besides, it doesn't matter if it's easy or not.  The GPL is a legal ...
> 
> of course you are right. But this may be considered as an optimal
> solution that doesn't match reality in some cases, like normal life
> doesn't.

Yup.  For a lot of people it's not practical to write a custom license
for a package.  The GPL is a good license for a lot of situations, and
it's been thoroughly reviewed by lawyers already, so a lot of people
just adopt it as-is.  Unfortunately, a lot of people adopt it without
fully understanding it.  That doesn't mean that you can ignore it
because it's inconvenent.

> In my opinion not a very representative example for our aims :)

No, but one example is enough to explain the GPL.

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Stipe Tolj]

Michael Weiser wrote:
> 
> Hello Stipe, you wrote:
> >> Also, ssh can't be exported from the USA and other countries might
> >> have restrictions also.  Safest to just leave it off.
> >yeah, the cryption restrictions. But what about the distributions of ssh
> >and SSLeay within the SuSE distributions, they are definitly included.
> >As I suppose such restrictions don't apply for Germany where our servers
> >are operating.
> Isn't ssh developed in Norway?

yep, it is, but there are very restrictive terms for importing ssh to
USA.

Regards,
Stipe

-- 
Stipe Tolj <tolj@uni-duesseldorf.de>
Cygwin Porting Project
Department of Economical Computer Science        
University of Cologne, Germany                  
http://www-public.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de/~tolj



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Stipe Tolj]

DJ Delorie wrote:
> 
> The reason I specified full sources for all application is because
> when you build an application with cygwin, the resulting binary always
> includes sources from cygwin (namely, the startup code and import
> library stubs), so all applications thus compiled must be distributed
> under the terms of the GPL.

ok, this point is quite clear and should be accepted by anyone using
cygwin, me too. So I suppose we will compile a set of software which is
definitly distributed under the terms of GPL.

Now what about the xforms 0.881 cygwin pre-compiled port we have
provided to the xforms authors. They will only allow distribution of the
pre-compiled binary but not the patched cygwin port sources. This would
mean they would violate GPL since we have used cygwin b20.1 to compile
it?!

Regards,
Sttipe

-- 
Stipe Tolj <tolj@uni-duesseldorf.de>

Cygwin Porting Project -- "We build UNIX on top of Windows"
http://www.student.uni-koeln.de/cygwin

Department of Economical Computer Science        
University of Cologne, Germany



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Earnie Boyd]

---Chris Faylor <cgf@cygnus.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 08, 1999 at 12:33:11AM +0100, Stipe Tolj wrote:
> >As you mentioned in an later mail, RedHat and SuSE are themselves
> >distributed under GPL, but they had (in some cases even still do)
> >distribute software which sources are not freely available, think
of Qt
> >from Troll Tech or the famous XForms lib.
> 
> This is possible to do with linux.  It isn't possible with cygwin.
> 
> If a program is built using the cygwin stub library (-lcygwin) it
*must*
> be GPLed.  This is not an optional thing.  It's a legal requirement.
> 
> This is, of course, not the case for either the linux kernel or the
> linux C library.
> 

Which is the reason for the birth of Mingw32.

==
-                        \\||//
-------------------o0O0--Earnie--0O0o-------------------
--                earnie_boyd@yahoo.com               --
-- http://www.freeyellow.com/members5/gw32/index.html --
----------------------ooo0O--O0ooo----------------------

PS: Newbie's, you should visit my page.
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Stipe Tolj]

Smith, Martin wrote:
> 
> > Is it wise to change this to binary for a'development'
> > > install or not?
> > 8<
> >
> > NO! The preferred method is text mounts.
> >
> Oops - fair enough, I wasn't sure :-) I guess this implies there are a few
> packages out there aren't properly ported?

that's right. Some porters ease their porting efforts by switching to
binary mounts and hence don't keep track of file IO.

> An automated install tool (like InstallShield) should be able to detect
> which OS the software is being installed on and set up the appropriate
> settings for each. I take the point though that this might not cover all
> cases adequately.

InstallShield will set up all required env vars as much as the users
selects the packages to install. Hence a software detection for the
system is not that much necessary.

> [Martin]  In theory an installer could ask the user what they wanted set up
> but, in practice, I agree this would probably be too much hassle. I
> certainly wouldn't recommend a windows installer as a panacea for all
> installation issues !

it will be capable of allowing to select packages not such dependency
checks as YaST from SuSE can do.

> True, all the tools in one place sounds handy :-) And, as you say, as long
> as people realise that this method of installation may not suit their
> particular needs then there's no problem...

fine

Regards,
Stipe

-- 
Stipe Tolj <tolj@uni-duesseldorf.de>
Cygwin Porting Project
Department of Economical Computer Science        
University of Cologne, Germany                  
http://www-public.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de/~tolj



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Stipe Tolj]

Smith, Martin wrote:

> *       What about text/binary mounts - I get the feeling binary mounts are
> preferred for most applications but, by default, the Cygnus tools install
> with text mounts. Is it wise to change this to binary for a 'development'
> install or not?

I'm not quite sure about that. Personaly I prefer text mounts for
development reasons, but I would like to hear some statements from the
core developers towards this item.

> *       What about environment variables? At the moment these are in a batch
> file but I usually add them to my NT environment and call Bash directly. Is
> this appropriate? What about other settings like term etc? Is there any
> "best" environment?

I suppose the env vars will be set in a global .bashrc or .profile file
started with bash.

> *       Once installed, how best to manage updates to included packages? Is
> there any advantage to using RPM or would it be best to stick with
> tarballs/diff/patch initially? I don't think many people are using any form
> of package management on cygwin yet but perhaps this would be useful?

Of course it would be usefull, but we will stick to tarball mechanisms
here for the beginning, I suppose.

> *       Would this include helper scripts like the modified "install" which
> many packages need to cope with .exe extensions? I'm sure there have been a
> few more handy scripts/wrappers on this list as well.

Hopefully yes, at least for those available and integratable for the
whole environment.

> *       Would/could it set up /bin, /etc mounts as well as the default ones
> provided by Cygwin?

I suppose yes.

> *       It would be handy if it could (eventually) offer to set inetutils up
> for you as well (as an NT service if you are on NT). Don't know how feasible
> this one is...

inetutils will be part of the software package, but I'm not aware if it
should initialize and run automaticly after installation.

> *       Of course, using InstallShield, you could offer some of these as
> options under "Custom" setup.

yep.

> Anyway, that's enough from me. I certainly support this suggestion and think
> it would be a good way of allowing more people to get up & running with the
> Cygwin tools without having to go through the regular FAQ session first :-)
> If you need a Beta tester for any of this, let me know ;-)

noted this.

Regards,
Stipe

-- 
Stipe Tolj <tolj@uni-duesseldorf.de>
Cygwin Porting Project
Department of Economical Computer Science        
University of Cologne, Germany                  
http://www-public.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de/~tolj



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[DJ Delorie]

> As I mentioned in a previous mail. RedHat and SuSE don't provide ALL
> sources for the pre-compiled binaries, so there is some kind of conflict
> here towards GPL.
> 
> We would like to put a collection of software to a CD like RedHat and
> SuSE do, if this is violating GPL, so why do they.

This is OK because Linux's runtime license is not GPL.  It is LGPL,
with exceptions which allow non-gpl applications to be built that run
under Linux.  Since the licencing allows for non-gpl applications,
such applications can be built.  Since the GPL applies to
applications, not aggregates of applications, such applications can be
distributed on the same CD as GPL programs.

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[DJ Delorie]

> I understand the reasons for these requirements, but IMHO they are
> unnecessarily burdensome for the case of packages which come from
> mirrors of ftp.gnu.org, where we have reasonable assurance they may
> always be found easily.

The FSF updates their software regularly.  As soon as they remove an
old version in favor of a new version, you've violated the GPL.

Besides, it doesn't matter if it's easy or not.  The GPL is a legal
document which must be honored if you wish to use GPL'd software,
regardless of whether or not you think it matters.  If you distribute
a binary that is covered by the GNU GPL, *you* are legally *required*
to distribute the sources that built *that* binary.  Those are the
terms, and only the author may decide to waive them.

> In addition, if someone wants the source, they may also wish to be
> checking for a more up to date version, so they will need to go to
> the gnu mirror anyway.

No, the GPL doesn't work that way.  The user must be able to get the
sources that built *that exact binary*.  Pointing to someone else's
FTP site that may or may not have the right version of the sources is
not acceptable.  Where would Linux be if the FSF had decided to remove
gcc 2.7.* from their servers, when gcc 2.8.* couldn't be used to build
the Linux kernel?

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[DJ Delorie]

> I don't think this is true.  I find no clause that says source _must_
> be distributed in the same means that the binaries are.  Section 3
> talks about distribution, but says only that the source must be "on a
> medium customarily used for software interchange" -- nothing about the
> same medium as the binary.

I can see a lawyer arguing that a customer who has a cdrom drive may
not consider the web to be "customarily used" if he/she has no
connection to the web.  It is not customarily used by that customer.
The only way to guarantee that the the customer has a machine-readable
copy (something the gpl *does* require) is to provide it on a medium
you know their machine can read - the same medium as the binary.

I don't know of many people who "customarily" use the web to download
600Mb of data at a time, either.

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Greg Miller]

Michael Weiser wrote:
> Why? Someone who can't do a tar -xzvf will also be unable to use
> cygwin after install. It's the old thread which shows up here
> regularly and I'm one of those who want tar's or even better rpm's.

Except that the above tar command isn't equivalent to a full
InstallShield executable. Further, many cygwin users just want to run
one or two pieces of UNIX software, not use a full simulation of UNIX.
-- 
http://www.classic-games.com/
President Clinton was acquitted; then again, so was O. J. Simpson.
*** NEWBIES: Limit signatures to four lines! No HTML mail or posts! ***

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

[ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Stipe Tolj]

I have planned this for about a year and now I would like to hear from
other cygwin users what they think about it. Mostly I'm interested in
the opinion of the cygwin core developers.

We would like to compile a set of files containing

    - latest cygwin full.exe distrbution
    - latest pre-compiled egcs replacement
    - latest cygwin-snapshots
    - pre-compiled libraries and headers for /usr/local/include and
/usr/local/lib
        - like X11R6.4, crypt, ncurses, gmp, readline, gd, ...
    - pre-compiled applications for /usr/local/
        - like X11R6.4, XEmacs, LyX, GIMP, mSQL, PostgreSQL, Apache,
inetutils, ssh

and all the other ports available at ftp.franken.de

    - any available sources for the pre-compiled cygwin ports
    - cygwin documentation
    - a HTML mirror of the complete mailing list contents

to a Cygwin DEV (Development Environment) CD-ROM like the RedHat or SuSE
Linux distributions. This package should enable users to install Cygwin
on a clean Win32 system with all required software allready available
via CD.

Currently all files should fit on a single CD. There won't be a CD
distribution (at least for now), but we will provide the complete set of
files for burning such a CD from our web site (and hopefully some
mirrors around the world).

We would like to use the latest InstallShield version, so new users may
install the base Cygwin b20.1 distrbition and any other components very
modular via InstallShield selection windows.

Any comments towards this idea are very welcome.

Regards,
Stipe

--
Stipe Tolj <tolj@uni-duesseldorf.de>

Cygwin Porting Project -- "We build UNIX on top of Windows"
http://www.student.uni-koeln.de/cygwin/

Department of Economical Computer Science
University of Cologne, Germany




--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Stipe Tolj]

DJ Delorie wrote:
> 
> > >Warning: I've not seen full sources on ftp.franken.de, which is a
> > >violation of the GPL.  You'll have to get the sources those packages
> >
> > Really? I thought, a pointer to the location of the sources would be
> > sufficient!?!
> 
> The GNU GPL version 2 requires that all the sources needed to build a
> given binary be made available via the same means as the binary.  For
> FTP/WWW access, this means on the same site (I asked RMS once).  The
> reasons are:

I don't know if I'm legaly right, but this would mean SuSE and others
would have to provide sources (like xforms) which are included in binary
form but not freely available as sources. Is that right?

> > If not, please tell me, what I have to do to fullfill the GPL! There was
> > no intention to violate it.
> 
> Simple.  Each tar/zip containing binaries must have a corresponding
> tar/zip of the sources, at the same site.  This is what djgpp does,
> this is what you should do.  If you ever remove the package, you
> remove both the source and binary at the same time.  When you
> distribute via ftp/www, the three year offer doesn't count - the user
> should download both the sources and binaries at the same time if they
> want them.  They aren't required to take the sources, but you are
> required to make them available whenever the binaries are available.

FYI, my cygwin ports to ftp.franken.de have always included sources :))

I hope Michael doesn't cut his cygwin porting efforts now ;(

Regards,
Stipe

-- 
Stipe Tolj <tolj@uni-duesseldorf.de>
Cygwin Porting Project
Department of Economical Computer Science        
University of Cologne, Germany                  
http://www-public.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de/~tolj



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Michael Weiser]

Hello Stipe, you wrote:
>The only thing I was trying to point out is that InstallShield will be
>used for first time installation (similar to YaST for SuSE) and then all
>sources will be supplyed as tarbars for re-compilation purposes.
Yes, that would be an option.

>> If recompiling support is limited, then you'll immediately be
>> violating the GPL (according to DJ Delorie).
>I was meaning automated support from InstallShield or any other
>installation tool for the tarbars, not the ability to build them under
>cygwin.
Jep, agreed.
-- 
bye, Michael

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Stipe Tolj]

Michael Weiser wrote:

> Why? Someone who can't do a tar -xzvf will also be unable to use
> cygwin after install. It's the old thread which shows up here
> regularly and I'm one of those who want tar's or even better rpm's.

I know about the previos threads on this.

The only thing I was trying to point out is that InstallShield will be
used for first time installation (similar to YaST for SuSE) and then all
sources will be supplyed as tarbars for re-compilation purposes.

> >Hmmm, that's why we want to build the CD environment as clean as
> >possible, like SuSE does it with the latest 6.0 release. Mainly all
> >packages should work after installation. Support for re-compiling the
> >packages will be very limited.
> If recompiling support is limited, then you'll immediately be
> violating the GPL (according to DJ Delorie).

I was meaning automated support from InstallShield or any other
installation tool for the tarbars, not the ability to build them under
cygwin.

> BTW: SuSE is getting worse with every release. :-|

nop :(( I haven't experienced this mainly, except some things like the
cipe daemon :))

Regards,
Stipe

-- 
Stipe Tolj <tolj@uni-duesseldorf.de>
Cygwin Porting Project
Department of Economical Computer Science        
University of Cologne, Germany                  
http://www-public.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de/~tolj



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Earnie Boyd]

---Greg Miller <gmiller@classic-games.com> wrote:
>
> Michael Weiser wrote:
> > Why? Someone who can't do a tar -xzvf will also be unable to use
> > cygwin after install. It's the old thread which shows up here
> > regularly and I'm one of those who want tar's or even better rpm's.
> 
> Except that the above tar command isn't equivalent to a full
> InstallShield executable. Further, many cygwin users just want to run
> one or two pieces of UNIX software, not use a full simulation of UNIX.

You've just given a perfectly good reason why _NOT_ to use
InstallShield.  With InstallShield, unless the packager has provided
for it, you can't just pick and choose like you would be able to with
tar.

I know, I know; can't this thread just die?  Well, I just couldn't
resist responding.
==
-                        \\||//
-------------------o0O0--Earnie--0O0o-------------------
--                earnie_boyd@yahoo.com               --
-- http://www.freeyellow.com/members5/gw32/index.html --
----------------------ooo0O--O0ooo----------------------

PS: Newbie's, you should visit my page.
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Greg Miller]

Michael Weiser wrote:
> Why? Someone who can't do a tar -xzvf will also be unable to use
> cygwin after install. It's the old thread which shows up here
> regularly and I'm one of those who want tar's or even better rpm's.

Except that the above tar command isn't equivalent to a full
InstallShield executable. Further, many cygwin users just want to run
one or two pieces of UNIX software, not use a full simulation of UNIX.
-- 
http://www.classic-games.com/
President Clinton was acquitted; then again, so was O. J. Simpson.
*** NEWBIES: Limit signatures to four lines! No HTML mail or posts! ***

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Suhaib M. Siddiqi]

-

>Hello DJ, you wrote:
>>> If recompiling support is limited, then you'll immediately be
>>> violating the GPL (according to DJ Delorie).
>>The GPL says that you have to have enouch sources to rebuild the apps.
>>It doesn't require that the person who gave you the sources help you
>>figure out how to do it.
>So the question is how limited 'very limited' is if Stipe writes it.
>--

Stipe was mentioning to RED HAT style CDROMs.  On a Red Hat Linux System,
you can basically extract the source RPM and recompile the software without
any troubles.  They supply all the Makefiles preconfigured to recompile and
produce the same binaries which are on the binary CDROM distribution.  If
that is what exactly GPL requires then I think Cygwin CD should follow same
rules and should not have any kind of limitations on recompilation of source
code.

-SMS

>bye, Michael
>
>--
>Want to unsubscribe from this list?
>Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com
>
>


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Michael Weiser]

Hello DJ, you wrote:
>> If recompiling support is limited, then you'll immediately be
>> violating the GPL (according to DJ Delorie).
>The GPL says that you have to have enouch sources to rebuild the apps.
>It doesn't require that the person who gave you the sources help you
>figure out how to do it.
So the question is how limited 'very limited' is if Stipe writes it.
-- 
bye, Michael

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[DJ Delorie]

> If recompiling support is limited, then you'll immediately be
> violating the GPL (according to DJ Delorie).

The GPL says that you have to have enouch sources to rebuild the apps.
It doesn't require that the person who gave you the sources help you
figure out how to do it.

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Michael Weiser]

Hello Stipe, you wrote:
>> > *     Of course, using InstallShield, you could offer some of these as
>> > options under "Custom" setup.
>> 8<
>> Yuk.  Just give me a tarball please.
>the cygwin port packages will be available as tarballs for after-install
>use, but the basic installation procedure for core cygwin and all
>pre-compiled packages will be within InstallShield since it is a very
>powerfull tool for such purposes on Win32 systems and new cygwin users
>should be more familiar with InstallShield than saying "tar xfz
>foo.tar.gz" within a non-DOS bash shell.
Why? Someone who can't do a tar -xzvf will also be unable to use
cygwin after install. It's the old thread which shows up here
regularly and I'm one of those who want tar's or even better rpm's.

>> I like the idea, too.  However, it is a given that you'll never
>> satisfy everyone and if you're too lazy to read do the FAQ session
>> then you're going to be too lazy to read any other installation manual
>> as well.  I can just hear the questions now, "I just got this CD and
>> I'm trying to ...". ;^)
>Hmmm, that's why we want to build the CD environment as clean as
>possible, like SuSE does it with the latest 6.0 release. Mainly all
>packages should work after installation. Support for re-compiling the
>packages will be very limited.
If recompiling support is limited, then you'll immediately be
violating the GPL (according to DJ Delorie).

BTW: SuSE is getting worse with every release. :-|
-- 
bye, Michael

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[DJ Delorie]

> Now what about the xforms 0.881 cygwin pre-compiled port we have
> provided to the xforms authors. They will only allow distribution of the
> pre-compiled binary but not the patched cygwin port sources. This would
> mean they would violate GPL since we have used cygwin b20.1 to compile
> it?!

Yes.

The price for having a free posix environment for NT is that you must
release your sources.

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Stipe Tolj]

Smith, Martin wrote:

> *       What about text/binary mounts - I get the feeling binary mounts are
> preferred for most applications but, by default, the Cygnus tools install
> with text mounts. Is it wise to change this to binary for a 'development'
> install or not?

I'm not quite sure about that. Personaly I prefer text mounts for
development reasons, but I would like to hear some statements from the
core developers towards this item.

> *       What about environment variables? At the moment these are in a batch
> file but I usually add them to my NT environment and call Bash directly. Is
> this appropriate? What about other settings like term etc? Is there any
> "best" environment?

I suppose the env vars will be set in a global .bashrc or .profile file
started with bash.

> *       Once installed, how best to manage updates to included packages? Is
> there any advantage to using RPM or would it be best to stick with
> tarballs/diff/patch initially? I don't think many people are using any form
> of package management on cygwin yet but perhaps this would be useful?

Of course it would be usefull, but we will stick to tarball mechanisms
here for the beginning, I suppose.

> *       Would this include helper scripts like the modified "install" which
> many packages need to cope with .exe extensions? I'm sure there have been a
> few more handy scripts/wrappers on this list as well.

Hopefully yes, at least for those available and integratable for the
whole environment.

> *       Would/could it set up /bin, /etc mounts as well as the default ones
> provided by Cygwin?

I suppose yes.

> *       It would be handy if it could (eventually) offer to set inetutils up
> for you as well (as an NT service if you are on NT). Don't know how feasible
> this one is...

inetutils will be part of the software package, but I'm not aware if it
should initialize and run automaticly after installation.

> *       Of course, using InstallShield, you could offer some of these as
> options under "Custom" setup.

yep.

> Anyway, that's enough from me. I certainly support this suggestion and think
> it would be a good way of allowing more people to get up & running with the
> Cygwin tools without having to go through the regular FAQ session first :-)
> If you need a Beta tester for any of this, let me know ;-)

noted this.

Regards,
Stipe

-- 
Stipe Tolj <tolj@uni-duesseldorf.de>
Cygwin Porting Project
Department of Economical Computer Science        
University of Cologne, Germany                  
http://www-public.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de/~tolj



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Stipe Tolj]

Michael Weiser wrote:
> 
> Hello Stipe, you wrote:
> >> Also, ssh can't be exported from the USA and other countries might
> >> have restrictions also.  Safest to just leave it off.
> >yeah, the cryption restrictions. But what about the distributions of ssh
> >and SSLeay within the SuSE distributions, they are definitly included.
> >As I suppose such restrictions don't apply for Germany where our servers
> >are operating.
> Isn't ssh developed in Norway?

yep, it is, but there are very restrictive terms for importing ssh to
USA.

Regards,
Stipe

-- 
Stipe Tolj <tolj@uni-duesseldorf.de>
Cygwin Porting Project
Department of Economical Computer Science        
University of Cologne, Germany                  
http://www-public.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de/~tolj



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Stipe Tolj]

Earnie Boyd wrote:
> > *     Of course, using InstallShield, you could offer some of these as
> > options under "Custom" setup.
> 8<
> 
> Yuk.  Just give me a tarball please.

the cygwin port packages will be available as tarballs for after-install
use, but the basic installation procedure for core cygwin and all
pre-compiled packages will be within InstallShield since it is a very
powerfull tool for such purposes on Win32 systems and new cygwin users
should be more familiar with InstallShield than saying "tar xfz
foo.tar.gz" within a non-DOS bash shell.

> I like the idea, too.  However, it is a given that you'll never
> satisfy everyone and if you're too lazy to read do the FAQ session
> then you're going to be too lazy to read any other installation manual
> as well.  I can just hear the questions now, "I just got this CD and
> I'm trying to ...". ;^)

Hmmm, that's why we want to build the CD environment as clean as
possible, like SuSE does it with the latest 6.0 release. Mainly all
packages should work after installation. Support for re-compiling the
packages will be very limited.

Regards,
Stipe

-- 
Stipe Tolj <tolj@uni-duesseldorf.de>
Cygwin Porting Project
Department of Economical Computer Science        
University of Cologne, Germany                  
http://www-public.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de/~tolj



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Stipe Tolj]

Smith, Martin wrote:
> 
> > Is it wise to change this to binary for a'development'
> > > install or not?
> > 8<
> >
> > NO! The preferred method is text mounts.
> >
> Oops - fair enough, I wasn't sure :-) I guess this implies there are a few
> packages out there aren't properly ported?

that's right. Some porters ease their porting efforts by switching to
binary mounts and hence don't keep track of file IO.

> An automated install tool (like InstallShield) should be able to detect
> which OS the software is being installed on and set up the appropriate
> settings for each. I take the point though that this might not cover all
> cases adequately.

InstallShield will set up all required env vars as much as the users
selects the packages to install. Hence a software detection for the
system is not that much necessary.

> [Martin]  In theory an installer could ask the user what they wanted set up
> but, in practice, I agree this would probably be too much hassle. I
> certainly wouldn't recommend a windows installer as a panacea for all
> installation issues !

it will be capable of allowing to select packages not such dependency
checks as YaST from SuSE can do.

> True, all the tools in one place sounds handy :-) And, as you say, as long
> as people realise that this method of installation may not suit their
> particular needs then there's no problem...

fine

Regards,
Stipe

-- 
Stipe Tolj <tolj@uni-duesseldorf.de>
Cygwin Porting Project
Department of Economical Computer Science        
University of Cologne, Germany                  
http://www-public.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de/~tolj



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Stipe Tolj]

DJ Delorie wrote:
> 
> The reason I specified full sources for all application is because
> when you build an application with cygwin, the resulting binary always
> includes sources from cygwin (namely, the startup code and import
> library stubs), so all applications thus compiled must be distributed
> under the terms of the GPL.

ok, this point is quite clear and should be accepted by anyone using
cygwin, me too. So I suppose we will compile a set of software which is
definitly distributed under the terms of GPL.

Now what about the xforms 0.881 cygwin pre-compiled port we have
provided to the xforms authors. They will only allow distribution of the
pre-compiled binary but not the patched cygwin port sources. This would
mean they would violate GPL since we have used cygwin b20.1 to compile
it?!

Regards,
Sttipe

-- 
Stipe Tolj <tolj@uni-duesseldorf.de>

Cygwin Porting Project -- "We build UNIX on top of Windows"
http://www.student.uni-koeln.de/cygwin

Department of Economical Computer Science        
University of Cologne, Germany



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Greg Miller]

Steve Morris wrote:
> Hmmm... To expand a little the mentioned rulings might suggest that
> one has the right to distribute software that will run under cygwin
> even if it means using some otherwise copy protected software. As an
> example Microsoft can't restrict the use of code that is required to
> write a Windows application, even if they hold the copyright on that
> code.

Possibly so, although I'm not aware of any such cases that have involved
Microsoft.

> 
> If this were applicable it would mean that Cygnus does not have the
> right to restrict distribution of code that runs under Cygwin by
> restricting the inclusion of copyrighted code necessary to run under
> cygwin. This would suggest that while Cygnus has the right to control
> and restrict cygwin itself it cannot similarly control the glue
> required to run under cygwin.

Correct.

> 
> Of course cygwin is not Windows. Restricting distribution of software
> running under a monopoly environment like Windows is a lot different
> than restricting the distribution of cygwin computable software. The
> courts might rule differently in these two cases. There are legitimate
> alternatatives to cygwin in the UNIX apps on Windows market. The
> courts would probably find that relevent.

Probably not. Many of the previous cases involved software that had
strong competition, notably the Sega Genesis and several embedded
applications, such as cash register software.

> 
> All I know is that if I ever wanted to do binary distribution of
> cygwin applications (i.e. not under GPL) I would buy a license from
> Cygnus. It is probably cheaper than the lawyers fees to figure this
> out. I would rather Cygnus get the money than the lawyers.

Indeed, it's mostly just a hypothetical case--almost nobody sues over
such a questionable case.
-- 
http://www.classic-games.com/
President Clinton was acquitted; then again, so was O. J. Simpson.
*** NEWBIES: Limit signatures to four lines! No HTML mail or posts! ***

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Steve Morris]

Greg Miller writes:
 > DJ Delorie wrote:
 > > The reason I specified full sources for all application is because
 > > when you build an application with cygwin, the resulting binary always
 > > includes sources from cygwin (namely, the startup code and import
 > > library stubs), so all applications thus compiled must be distributed
 > > under the terms of the GPL.
 > 
 > Possibly. American courts have *sometimes* held that, for purposes of
 > interoperation with other software and/or hardware, you can ignore
 > licensing terms/copyrights that would prevent that interoperation. Has
 > the GPL ever been tested in an appeals court for Windows .DLLs and the
 > associated .LIB files? If not, we're guessing what would happen.

Hmmm... To expand a little the mentioned rulings might suggest that
one has the right to distribute software that will run under cygwin
even if it means using some otherwise copy protected software. As an
example Microsoft can't restrict the use of code that is required to
write a Windows application, even if they hold the copyright on that
code.

If this were applicable it would mean that Cygnus does not have the
right to restrict distribution of code that runs under Cygwin by
restricting the inclusion of copyrighted code necessary to run under
cygwin. This would suggest that while Cygnus has the right to control
and restrict cygwin itself it cannot similarly control the glue
required to run under cygwin.

Of course cygwin is not Windows. Restricting distribution of software
running under a monopoly environment like Windows is a lot different
than restricting the distribution of cygwin computable software. The
courts might rule differently in these two cases. There are legitimate
alternatatives to cygwin in the UNIX apps on Windows market. The
courts would probably find that relevent.

All I know is that if I ever wanted to do binary distribution of
cygwin applications (i.e. not under GPL) I would buy a license from
Cygnus. It is probably cheaper than the lawyers fees to figure this
out. I would rather Cygnus get the money than the lawyers.

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Greg Miller]

DJ Delorie wrote:
> The reason I specified full sources for all application is because
> when you build an application with cygwin, the resulting binary always
> includes sources from cygwin (namely, the startup code and import
> library stubs), so all applications thus compiled must be distributed
> under the terms of the GPL.

Possibly. American courts have *sometimes* held that, for purposes of
interoperation with other software and/or hardware, you can ignore
licensing terms/copyrights that would prevent that interoperation. Has
the GPL ever been tested in an appeals court for Windows .DLLs and the
associated .LIB files? If not, we're guessing what would happen.
-- 
http://www.classic-games.com/
President Clinton was acquitted; then again, so was O. J. Simpson.
*** NEWBIES: Limit signatures to four lines! No HTML mail or posts! ***

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Steve Morris]

DJ Delorie writes:
 > 
 > > I don't think this is true.  I find no clause that says source _must_
 > > be distributed in the same means that the binaries are.  Section 3
 > > talks about distribution, but says only that the source must be "on a
 > > medium customarily used for software interchange" -- nothing about the
 > > same medium as the binary.
 > 
 > I can see a lawyer arguing that a customer who has a cdrom drive may
 > not consider the web to be "customarily used" if he/she has no
 > connection to the web.

Lawyers will argue anything but that's a stretch, even for a
lawyer. As someone with a lot of involvement with the legal field I
suggest that the courts would most likely interpret "on a medium
customarily used for software interchange" to mean customarily used in
a general sense i.e. by people who do software interchange; unless
there was specific language to the contrary. Words like customary and
reasonable, when used without qualifiers are used in the law to refer
to general practice rather than to specific practice of the parties to
the contract.

Admittedly "customarily" is ambiguous in common usage. However that
doesn't help with the interpretation. Courts generally find that
ambiguous clauses in contracts are unenforcable.

Like a lot of legal discussion there is an Angel vs. heads of pins
flavor to this conversation. I hope they include the source
regardless. It is a good idea regardless of GPL. I have often wanted
to fix a minor bug in one tiny part of a large system. Having the
sources match the binaries without doing extensive investigation of
where they live is a major benefit and well appreciated by end users.

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[DJ Delorie]

> I don't think this is true.  I find no clause that says source _must_
> be distributed in the same means that the binaries are.  Section 3
> talks about distribution, but says only that the source must be "on a
> medium customarily used for software interchange" -- nothing about the
> same medium as the binary.

I can see a lawyer arguing that a customer who has a cdrom drive may
not consider the web to be "customarily used" if he/she has no
connection to the web.  It is not customarily used by that customer.
The only way to guarantee that the the customer has a machine-readable
copy (something the gpl *does* require) is to provide it on a medium
you know their machine can read - the same medium as the binary.

I don't know of many people who "customarily" use the web to download
600Mb of data at a time, either.

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[DJ Delorie]

> Maybe I need to read the GPL again but my recollection is that sources
> must be made available without additional charge.

You may charge a copying fee.  This option is available to
distributors *if* they provide a *written* offer, good for three
years, to provide the sources for that distribution, on the same media
as the distribution.  If you sell a binary CD, you must be willing to
provide a source CD anytime in the next three years.

In most cases, the cost of maintaining an archive of those sources
exceeds the cost of just delivering them with the binaries up front.

> There are many ways of meeting this requirement. For example the
> sources could be on an optional CD only provided on request. This
> used to be common when distributions were mostly on tar tape and
> expensive to generate.

It would have to be the same type of media as the binaries.  You can't
put binaries on a floppy and sources on a CD, for example.  Or, for a
more esoteric example, you can't put binaries on a CD and sources on
an 800m 1/2" tape reel or a stack of punch cards, because the user may
not be able to use them.

> Also I believe that the GPL allows you to distribute binaries on a CD
> but the sources only from a web site.

No, it does not allow this.  RMS has hinted that GPL3 maylow this,
but it still must be the *distributor's* web site.  GPL2 requires that
sources be made available via the same means as the binary.

> Many people get lazy and only provide a pointer to the sources on
> someone elses site. This does NOT meet GPL requirements unless the
> pointed to site agrees to act as the source providing agent for the
> binary distributer. For example it is not OK to say "you can get the
> sources at Cygnus" unless Cygnus agrees to this arrangement.

Correct.

> Of course this flexibility is up to the specific copyright holder of
> the software. Cygnus, as the copyright holder for Cygwin, is free to
> be flexible or not as they wish according to their own
> interpretation of their interests and the interests of the cygwin
> community.

I think we've been pretty flexible so far, but that doesn't mean
you're not breaking the law, or that we won't change our policies in
the future to be more strict.  Personally, I'll always advise people
to follow the letter and the spirit of the GPL.

> Notwithstanding the subtleties of GPL it is still preferable to get
> sources with the binary distribution and that is current common
> practice.

Yup :-)

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[DJ Delorie]

> Isn't ssh developed in Norway?

Any time you put encryption software in a distribution, you have to be
extra careful about what happens to the distribution and how you word
the import/export warnings, just in case.  Sometimes it's easier to
just avoid encryption software.

Of course, this is just *my* opinion.

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Michael Weiser]

Hello Stipe, you wrote:
>> Also, ssh can't be exported from the USA and other countries might
>> have restrictions also.  Safest to just leave it off.
>yeah, the cryption restrictions. But what about the distributions of ssh
>and SSLeay within the SuSE distributions, they are definitly included.
>As I suppose such restrictions don't apply for Germany where our servers
>are operating.
Isn't ssh developed in Norway?
-- 
bye, Michael

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

RE: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Smith, Martin]

> Is it wise to change this to binary for a'development'
> > install or not?
> 8<
> 
> NO! The preferred method is text mounts.  
> 
Oops - fair enough, I wasn't sure :-) I guess this implies there are a few
packages out there aren't properly ported?

> What about environment variables? At the moment these are in a batch
> > file but I usually add them to my NT environment and call Bashdirectly.
> Is
> > this appropriate? What about other settings like term etc? Is thereany
> > "best" environment?
> 
> There are reasons why the environment variables are set in the batch
> file; that being, it works on both NT and 9x.
> 
> 
An automated install tool (like InstallShield) should be able to detect
which OS the software is being installed on and set up the appropriate
settings for each. I take the point though that this might not cover all
cases adequately.

> I prefer this method as
> to something modifying my setup files/environment.  IMNSHO, the "best"
> environment is the default one provided by the tool.  Alternates can
> be explained and possibly somewhat automated after the installation.
> 
> 8<
> > *	Once installed, how best to manage updates to included packages? Is
> > there any advantage to using RPM or would it be best to stick with
> > tarballs/diff/patch initially? I don't think many people are using
> any form
> > of package management on cygwin yet but perhaps this would be useful?
> 8<
> 
> This has been discussed many times before.  I prefer the tarball
> method while others prefer the automated installation.  If you want to
> satisfy all peoples then you have to supply both methods.
> 
[Martin]  Seems reasonable. I have RedHat Linux at home but still tend to
install a lot of stuff from tarball rather than RPM packages. 

> 8<
> > *	Would this include helper scripts like the modified "install" which
> > many packages need to cope with .exe extensions? I'm sure there have
> been a
> > few more handy scripts/wrappers on this list as well.
> 8<
> 
> Just search the archives.
> 
[Martin]  I didn't want them just now - I was just suggesting that the more
"essential" of these might make a useful addition to such a CD :-)

> 8<
> > *	Would/could it set up /bin, /etc mounts as well as the default ones
> > provided by Cygwin?
> 8<
> 
> Again, this is a preference thing.  Some prefer to use symbolic links,
> some prefer to create a different directory structure altogether and
> some prefer just using mount points.  Whatever you do as a default
> will only satisfy about 1/3 (a guess) of the preferences.
> 
[Martin]  In theory an installer could ask the user what they wanted set up
but, in practice, I agree this would probably be too much hassle. I
certainly wouldn't recommend a windows installer as a panacea for all
installation issues !

> > Anyway, that's enough from me. I certainly support this suggestion
> and think
> > it would be a good way of allowing more people to get up & running
> with the
> > Cygwin tools without having to go through the regular FAQ session
> first :-)
> 8<
> 
> I like the idea, too.  However, it is a given that you'll never
> satisfy everyone and if you're too lazy to read do the FAQ session
> then you're going to be too lazy to read any other installation manual
> as well.  I can just hear the questions now, "I just got this CD and
> I'm trying to ...". ;^)
> 
True, all the tools in one place sounds handy :-) And, as you say, as long
as people realise that this method of installation may not suit their
particular needs then there's no problem...

Regards,
	Martin

> ==
> -                        \\||//
> -------------------o0O0--Earnie--0O0o-------------------
> --                earnie_boyd@yahoo.com               --
> -- http://www.freeyellow.com/members5/gw32/index.html --
> ----------------------ooo0O--O0ooo----------------------
> 
> PS: Newbie's, you should visit my page.

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

RE: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Earnie Boyd]

---"Smith, Martin" <martin@exchange.Scotland.NCR.COM> wrote:
8<
> *	What about text/binary mounts - I get the feeling binary mounts are
> preferred for most applications but, by default, the Cygnus tools
install
> with text mounts. Is it wise to change this to binary for a
'development'
> install or not?
8<

NO! The preferred method is text mounts.  That is the reason for the
default.  If a program requires binary mounts then the program isn't
properly ported.  Switching to binary mounts causes other problems. 
In a program always _SPECIFY_ whether it is to be opened for text mode
processing or binary mode processing, don't rely on the default.  A
file should be opened for text mode processing if the file can
potentially be read or created by humans with a text mode editor, such
as NOTEPAD.  All other files should be opened for binary mode
processing.

8<
> *	What about environment variables? At the moment these are in a batch
> file but I usually add them to my NT environment and call Bash
directly. Is
> this appropriate? What about other settings like term etc? Is there
any
> "best" environment?
8<

There are reasons why the environment variables are set in the batch
file; that being, it works on both NT and 9x.  I prefer this method as
to something modifying my setup files/environment.  IMNSHO, the "best"
environment is the default one provided by the tool.  Alternates can
be explained and possibly somewhat automated after the installation.

8<
> *	Once installed, how best to manage updates to included packages? Is
> there any advantage to using RPM or would it be best to stick with
> tarballs/diff/patch initially? I don't think many people are using
any form
> of package management on cygwin yet but perhaps this would be useful?
8<

This has been discussed many times before.  I prefer the tarball
method while others prefer the automated installation.  If you want to
satisfy all peoples then you have to supply both methods.

8<
> *	Would this include helper scripts like the modified "install" which
> many packages need to cope with .exe extensions? I'm sure there have
been a
> few more handy scripts/wrappers on this list as well.
8<

Just search the archives.

8<
> *	Would/could it set up /bin, /etc mounts as well as the default ones
> provided by Cygwin?
8<

Again, this is a preference thing.  Some prefer to use symbolic links,
some prefer to create a different directory structure altogether and
some prefer just using mount points.  Whatever you do as a default
will only satisfy about 1/3 (a guess) of the preferences.

8<
> *	It would be handy if it could (eventually) offer to set inetutils up
> for you as well (as an NT service if you are on NT). Don't know how
feasible
> this one is...
8<

No comment.

8<
> *	Of course, using InstallShield, you could offer some of these as
> options under "Custom" setup.
8<

Yuk.  Just give me a tarball please.

8< 
> Anyway, that's enough from me. I certainly support this suggestion
and think
> it would be a good way of allowing more people to get up & running
with the
> Cygwin tools without having to go through the regular FAQ session
first :-)
8<

I like the idea, too.  However, it is a given that you'll never
satisfy everyone and if you're too lazy to read do the FAQ session
then you're going to be too lazy to read any other installation manual
as well.  I can just hear the questions now, "I just got this CD and
I'm trying to ...". ;^)

==
-                        \\||//
-------------------o0O0--Earnie--0O0o-------------------
--                earnie_boyd@yahoo.com               --
-- http://www.freeyellow.com/members5/gw32/index.html --
----------------------ooo0O--O0ooo----------------------

PS: Newbie's, you should visit my page.
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

RE: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Smith, Martin]

I think this is an excellent idea and, as Tripp says, several people
probably already have this on their long-term to-do list :-)

Here are a few other thoughts/suggestions. Feel free to reject them if they
are not appropriate ! I realise there are a lot of suggestions here but
there's no need to do them all at once (or at all for that matter) - a core
CD package would be fine with me :-)

*	What about text/binary mounts - I get the feeling binary mounts are
preferred for most applications but, by default, the Cygnus tools install
with text mounts. Is it wise to change this to binary for a 'development'
install or not?
*	What about environment variables? At the moment these are in a batch
file but I usually add them to my NT environment and call Bash directly. Is
this appropriate? What about other settings like term etc? Is there any
"best" environment?
*	Once installed, how best to manage updates to included packages? Is
there any advantage to using RPM or would it be best to stick with
tarballs/diff/patch initially? I don't think many people are using any form
of package management on cygwin yet but perhaps this would be useful?
*	Would this include helper scripts like the modified "install" which
many packages need to cope with .exe extensions? I'm sure there have been a
few more handy scripts/wrappers on this list as well.
*	Would/could it set up /bin, /etc mounts as well as the default ones
provided by Cygwin?
*	It would be handy if it could (eventually) offer to set inetutils up
for you as well (as an NT service if you are on NT). Don't know how feasible
this one is...
*	Of course, using InstallShield, you could offer some of these as
options under "Custom" setup.

Anyway, that's enough from me. I certainly support this suggestion and think
it would be a good way of allowing more people to get up & running with the
Cygwin tools without having to go through the regular FAQ session first :-)
If you need a Beta tester for any of this, let me know ;-)

Regards,
	Martin

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Stipe Tolj [SMTP:tolj@uni-duesseldorf.de]
> Sent:	Sunday, March 07, 1999 5:08 PM
> To:	Cygwin
> Subject:	[ANN] Cygwin DEV survey
> 
> I have planned this for about a year and now I would like to hear from
> other cygwin users what they think about it. Mostly I'm interested in
> the opinion of the cygwin core developers.
> 
> We would like to compile a set of files containing
> 
>     - latest cygwin full.exe distrbution
>     - latest pre-compiled egcs replacement
>     - latest cygwin-snapshots
>     - pre-compiled libraries and headers for /usr/local/include and
> /usr/local/lib
>         - like X11R6.4, crypt, ncurses, gmp, readline, gd, ...
>     - pre-compiled applications for /usr/local/
>         - like X11R6.4, XEmacs, LyX, GIMP, mSQL, PostgreSQL, Apache,
> inetutils, ssh
> 
> and all the other ports available at ftp.franken.de
> 
>     - any available sources for the pre-compiled cygwin ports
>     - cygwin documentation
>     - a HTML mirror of the complete mailing list contents
> 
> to a Cygwin DEV (Development Environment) CD-ROM like the RedHat or SuSE
> Linux distributions. This package should enable users to install Cygwin
> on a clean Win32 system with all required software allready available
> via CD.
> 
> Currently all files should fit on a single CD. There won't be a CD
> distribution (at least for now), but we will provide the complete set of
> files for burning such a CD from our web site (and hopefully some
> mirrors around the world).
> 
> We would like to use the latest InstallShield version, so new users may
> install the base Cygwin b20.1 distrbition and any other components very
> modular via InstallShield selection windows.
> 
> Any comments towards this idea are very welcome.
> 
> Regards,
> Stipe
> 
> --
> Stipe Tolj <tolj@uni-duesseldorf.de>
> 
> Cygwin Porting Project -- "We build UNIX on top of Windows"
> http://www.student.uni-koeln.de/cygwin/
> 
> Department of Economical Computer Science
> University of Cologne, Germany
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Want to unsubscribe from this list?
> Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Earnie Boyd]

---Chris Faylor <cgf@cygnus.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 08, 1999 at 12:33:11AM +0100, Stipe Tolj wrote:
> >As you mentioned in an later mail, RedHat and SuSE are themselves
> >distributed under GPL, but they had (in some cases even still do)
> >distribute software which sources are not freely available, think
of Qt
> >from Troll Tech or the famous XForms lib.
> 
> This is possible to do with linux.  It isn't possible with cygwin.
> 
> If a program is built using the cygwin stub library (-lcygwin) it
*must*
> be GPLed.  This is not an optional thing.  It's a legal requirement.
> 
> This is, of course, not the case for either the linux kernel or the
> linux C library.
> 

Which is the reason for the birth of Mingw32.

==
-                        \\||//
-------------------o0O0--Earnie--0O0o-------------------
--                earnie_boyd@yahoo.com               --
-- http://www.freeyellow.com/members5/gw32/index.html --
----------------------ooo0O--O0ooo----------------------

PS: Newbie's, you should visit my page.
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[DJ Delorie]

> > Besides, it doesn't matter if it's easy or not.  The GPL is a legal ...
> 
> of course you are right. But this may be considered as an optimal
> solution that doesn't match reality in some cases, like normal life
> doesn't.

Yup.  For a lot of people it's not practical to write a custom license
for a package.  The GPL is a good license for a lot of situations, and
it's been thoroughly reviewed by lawyers already, so a lot of people
just adopt it as-is.  Unfortunately, a lot of people adopt it without
fully understanding it.  That doesn't mean that you can ignore it
because it's inconvenent.

> In my opinion not a very representative example for our aims :)

No, but one example is enough to explain the GPL.

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[DJ Delorie]

> As I mentioned in a previous mail. RedHat and SuSE don't provide ALL
> sources for the pre-compiled binaries, so there is some kind of conflict
> here towards GPL.
> 
> We would like to put a collection of software to a CD like RedHat and
> SuSE do, if this is violating GPL, so why do they.

This is OK because Linux's runtime license is not GPL.  It is LGPL,
with exceptions which allow non-gpl applications to be built that run
under Linux.  Since the licencing allows for non-gpl applications,
such applications can be built.  Since the GPL applies to
applications, not aggregates of applications, such applications can be
distributed on the same CD as GPL programs.

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[DJ Delorie]

> And what about the binary ONLY distribution of Qt and xforms within SuSE
> 6.0, are they violation GPL hence?!

The GPL allows *aggregates* of software in a single distribution.  You
could put the Linux kernel and Microsoft Office on the same CD and it
wouldn't matter.  The GPL applies to applications, not the media they
are distributed on.

The reason I specified full sources for all application is because
when you build an application with cygwin, the resulting binary always
includes sources from cygwin (namely, the startup code and import
library stubs), so all applications thus compiled must be distributed
under the terms of the GPL.

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Chris Faylor]

On Mon, Mar 08, 1999 at 12:33:11AM +0100, Stipe Tolj wrote:
>As you mentioned in an later mail, RedHat and SuSE are themselves
>distributed under GPL, but they had (in some cases even still do)
>distribute software which sources are not freely available, think of Qt
>from Troll Tech or the famous XForms lib.

This is possible to do with linux.  It isn't possible with cygwin.

If a program is built using the cygwin stub library (-lcygwin) it *must*
be GPLed.  This is not an optional thing.  It's a legal requirement.

This is, of course, not the case for either the linux kernel or the
linux C library.

cgf

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Tripp Lilley]

On Mon, 8 Mar 1999, Stipe Tolj wrote:

> As I mentioned in a previous mail. RedHat and SuSE don't provide ALL
> sources for the pre-compiled binaries, so there is some kind of conflict
> here towards GPL.

Not all of the packages they include are themselves licensed under the
GPL. Remember that the GPL covers individual pieces of software, not
collections. Thus, a CD can contain GPL'ed software and non-GPL'ed
software side by side. The GPL'ed software must include sources, the
non-GPL'ed software doesn't have this requirement.

However, in the specific case of software built for Cygwin, Cygnus'
licensing of the Cygwin CORE (ie: the DLL) is GPL, NOT LGPL. That means
that any software linked to the Cygwin DLL /must/ also be GPL'ed, unless
the authors/distributors have negotiated an alternative license with
Cygnus.

NOTE: IANAL, and IANACE (Cygnus Employee), so this is my reading of the
Cygwin License page. IASG (Smart Guy), though, so I don't think I'm off
base :-)

--
   Tripp Lilley + Innovative Workflow Engineering, Inc. + (tripp@iweinc.com)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  "When applying any correction, you should be swift, firm, without anger
   or frustration and not carry a grudge."

-- 
   jane h. kilberg in http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=448336391



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Stipe Tolj]

DJ Delorie wrote:
> 
> > >Warning: I've not seen full sources on ftp.franken.de, which is a
> > >violation of the GPL.  You'll have to get the sources those packages
> >
> > Really? I thought, a pointer to the location of the sources would be
> > sufficient!?!
> 
> The GNU GPL version 2 requires that all the sources needed to build a
> given binary be made available via the same means as the binary.  For
> FTP/WWW access, this means on the same site (I asked RMS once).  The
> reasons are:

I don't know if I'm legaly right, but this would mean SuSE and others
would have to provide sources (like xforms) which are included in binary
form but not freely available as sources. Is that right?

> > If not, please tell me, what I have to do to fullfill the GPL! There was
> > no intention to violate it.
> 
> Simple.  Each tar/zip containing binaries must have a corresponding
> tar/zip of the sources, at the same site.  This is what djgpp does,
> this is what you should do.  If you ever remove the package, you
> remove both the source and binary at the same time.  When you
> distribute via ftp/www, the three year offer doesn't count - the user
> should download both the sources and binaries at the same time if they
> want them.  They aren't required to take the sources, but you are
> required to make them available whenever the binaries are available.

FYI, my cygwin ports to ftp.franken.de have always included sources :))

I hope Michael doesn't cut his cygwin porting efforts now ;(

Regards,
Stipe

-- 
Stipe Tolj <tolj@uni-duesseldorf.de>
Cygwin Porting Project
Department of Economical Computer Science        
University of Cologne, Germany                  
http://www-public.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de/~tolj



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Stipe Tolj]

Michael Hirmke wrote:
> 
> Hi DJ,
> 
> [...]
> >> and all the other ports available at ftp.franken.de
> >
> >Warning: I've not seen full sources on ftp.franken.de, which is a
> >violation of the GPL.  You'll have to get the sources those packages
> 
> Really? I thought, a pointer to the location of the sources would be
> sufficient!?! Besides that IMHO you have to provide the sources *on*
> *request*! For many of the packages there are in fact also source
> packages in the same directory - there are no sources on ftp.franken.de
> for packages, where the orginal source package has been used without
> modifications. In this case there is only a pointer to a location, where
> you can get the sources.
> If not, please tell me, what I have to do to fullfill the GPL! There was
> no intention to violate it.

As I mentioned in a previous mail. RedHat and SuSE don't provide ALL
sources for the pre-compiled binaries, so there is some kind of conflict
here towards GPL.

We would like to put a collection of software to a CD like RedHat and
SuSE do, if this is violating GPL, so why do they.

Regards,
Stipe

-- 
Stipe Tolj <tolj@uni-duesseldorf.de>
Cygwin Porting Project
Department of Economical Computer Science        
University of Cologne, Germany                  
http://www-public.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de/~tolj



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Stipe Tolj]

DJ Delorie wrote:
> 
> > I understand the reasons for these requirements, but IMHO they are
> > unnecessarily burdensome for the case of packages which come from
> > mirrors of ftp.gnu.org, where we have reasonable assurance they may
> > always be found easily.
> 
> The FSF updates their software regularly.  As soon as they remove an
> old version in favor of a new version, you've violated the GPL.
> 
> Besides, it doesn't matter if it's easy or not.  The GPL is a legal
> document which must be honored if you wish to use GPL'd software,
> regardless of whether or not you think it matters.  If you distribute
> a binary that is covered by the GNU GPL, *you* are legally *required*
> to distribute the sources that built *that* binary.  Those are the
> terms, and only the author may decide to waive them.

of course you are right. But this may be considered as an optimal
solution that doesn't match reality in some cases, like normal life
doesn't.

> > In addition, if someone wants the source, they may also wish to be
> > checking for a more up to date version, so they will need to go to
> > the gnu mirror anyway.
> 
> No, the GPL doesn't work that way.  The user must be able to get the
> sources that built *that exact binary*.  Pointing to someone else's
> FTP site that may or may not have the right version of the sources is
> not acceptable.  Where would Linux be if the FSF had decided to remove
> gcc 2.7.* from their servers, when gcc 2.8.* couldn't be used to build
> the Linux kernel?

In my opinion not a very representative example for our aims :)

Regards,
Stipe

-- 
Stipe Tolj <tolj@uni-duesseldorf.de>
Cygwin Porting Project
Department of Economical Computer Science        
University of Cologne, Germany                  
http://www-public.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de/~tolj


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Stipe Tolj]

DJ Delorie wrote:

> >     - latest cygwin full.exe distrbution
> >     - latest pre-compiled egcs replacement
> 
> No problem here, these are all GPL.  Just remember that you must
> include all the sources that go with them.  This means that if you
> have multiple copies of the cygwin dll, you must have multiple copies
> of the sources for the dll as well.

Of course we will distrbute the full sources for the binary
distributions of cygwin. I suppose we will use the official cygwin b20.1
for binary distributions, this may be compliant to the sources.

> >     - latest cygwin-snapshots
> 
> I wouldn't recommend this, except perhaps to put them in a directory
> that's clearly labelled EXPERIMENTAL.  We don't even check these
> snapshots before posting them, and except for the ChangeLogs there's
> no documentation about them.

Of course this has been PLANNED to be labeled highly experimental, like
the Linux hacker kernel versions are. We suppose this should provide new
users an easy way to drop into the development and hence enhance the
contribution towards the cygwin project. 

> >     - pre-compiled libraries and headers for /usr/local/include and
> > /usr/local/lib
> >         - like X11R6.4, crypt, ncurses, gmp, readline, gd, ...
> >     - pre-compiled applications for /usr/local/
> >         - like X11R6.4, XEmacs, LyX, GIMP, mSQL, PostgreSQL, Apache,
> > inetutils, ssh
> 
> Be careful about distribution terms.  Anything compiled with cygwin
> must be distributed under the terms of the GPL - not just the terms of
> the application itself.  This means that *all* applications on the CD
> *must* include full sources, not just patches.  You can't distribute
> anything whose distribution terms are incompatible with the GPL.

Basicly we have planned to include any packages that re-compiles on our
development system and include full sources. Most applications fit this
restrictions.

As you mentioned in an later mail, RedHat and SuSE are themselves
distributed under GPL, but they had (in some cases even still do)
distribute software which sources are not freely available, think of Qt
from Troll Tech or the famous XForms lib.

One moment for off-topic:
FYI, the authors of xforms have provided us the full source code to
produce an cygwin b20 pre-compiled lib which has been done and will be
available soon on their distribution site.

> Also, ssh can't be exported from the USA and other countries might
> have restrictions also.  Safest to just leave it off.

yeah, the cryption restrictions. But what about the distributions of ssh
and SSLeay within the SuSE distributions, they are definitly included.
As I suppose such restrictions don't apply for Germany where our servers
are operating.


> > and all the other ports available at ftp.franken.de
> 
> Warning: I've not seen full sources on ftp.franken.de, which is a
> violation of the GPL.  You'll have to get the sources those packages
> were compiled with, verify that the sources you have actually build
> the executables you are distributing (usually by rebuilding), and ship
> them together.

That's right, not all of them include sources, but as I mentioned above,
we will only include packages whose sources have been re-compiled on our
own systems. Hence we will ask the individual porters for source supply
if the inclusion of a package is considered. 

> >     - any available sources for the pre-compiled cygwin ports
> 
> That should be *all*, if you are distributing the binaries for them.
> The GPL requires it.

And what about the binary ONLY distribution of Qt and xforms within SuSE
6.0, are they violation GPL hence?!

> >     - cygwin documentation
> 
> No problem here, I think.  There isn't much anyway :(

I suppose there may be cygwin users of the mailing list who may wish to
contribute at least mini-howtos to include for the first release.

> >     - a HTML mirror of the complete mailing list contents
> 
> Good luck.  Please don't mirror my site, as that would put a pretty
> heavy load on my server, and the URLs won't be valid Win32 file names
> (they have colons in them, and are cgi-generated).  There are about
> 22,000 messages, which would mean 22,000 hits to a *cgi* on my server
> to download them all.  I don't see the benefit to this either, since
> the web versions have search engines and are continuously updated.

We thought this may be an addition information repository since the
documentation is pretty weak. I suppose a tarball provided from
sourceware would be the best and least server loading solution.

Regards,
Stipe

-- 
Stipe Tolj <tolj@uni-duesseldorf.de>
Cygwin Porting Project
Department of Economical Computer Science        
University of Cologne, Germany                  
http://www-public.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de/~tolj



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Stipe Tolj]

Tripp Lilley wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 7 Mar 1999, Suhaib M. Siddiqi wrote:
> 
> > A CD like Red Hat and SuSE will not be violation of Cygwin GPL license?
> 
> from http://sourceware.cygnus.com/cygwin/COPYING :
> 
> "Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
> have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
> this service if you wish),"
> 
> And please put me on the "yes, it's a good idea" list, since I have on my
> list of things to do "burn Cygwin install CD" :-)

nice to hear that the idea for a Cygwin CD is not limited to our short
mind brains :)) 

Regards,
Stipe

-- 
Stipe Tolj <tolj@uni-duesseldorf.de>
Cygwin Porting Project
Department of Economical Computer Science        
University of Cologne, Germany                  
http://www-public.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de/~tolj



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Suhaib M. Siddiqi]

>
> What happens if those sources go away?  You immediately violate the
> GPL if/when that happens. >>
>
>I understand the reasons for these requirements, but IMHO they are
>unnecessarily burdensome for the case of packages which come from mirrors
of
>ftp.gnu.org, where we have reasonable assurance they may always be found
>easily.  In addition, if someone wants the source, they may also wish to be
>checking for a more up to date version, so they will need to go to the gnu
>mirror anyway.
>

Licensing is a different issue.  If I want source, then I do not worry about
precompiled version.  I would rather compile it myself.



>--
>Want to unsubscribe from this list?
>Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com
>
>


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[DJ Delorie]

> I understand the reasons for these requirements, but IMHO they are
> unnecessarily burdensome for the case of packages which come from
> mirrors of ftp.gnu.org, where we have reasonable assurance they may
> always be found easily.

The FSF updates their software regularly.  As soon as they remove an
old version in favor of a new version, you've violated the GPL.

Besides, it doesn't matter if it's easy or not.  The GPL is a legal
document which must be honored if you wish to use GPL'd software,
regardless of whether or not you think it matters.  If you distribute
a binary that is covered by the GNU GPL, *you* are legally *required*
to distribute the sources that built *that* binary.  Those are the
terms, and only the author may decide to waive them.

> In addition, if someone wants the source, they may also wish to be
> checking for a more up to date version, so they will need to go to
> the gnu mirror anyway.

No, the GPL doesn't work that way.  The user must be able to get the
sources that built *that exact binary*.  Pointing to someone else's
FTP site that may or may not have the right version of the sources is
not acceptable.  Where would Linux be if the FSF had decided to remove
gcc 2.7.* from their servers, when gcc 2.8.* couldn't be used to build
the Linux kernel?

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[N8TM]

In a message dated 3/7/99 12:55:04 PM Pacific Standard Time, dj@delorie.com
writes:

<< The GPL requires that *you* are responsible for
 distributing the sources.  You can't rely on someone else to
 distribute the sources unless they agree be held responsible, and even
 then you'd need to do the offer in writing.
 
 > In this case there is only a pointer to a location, where you can
 > get the sources.
 
 What happens if those sources go away?  You immediately violate the
 GPL if/when that happens. >>

I understand the reasons for these requirements, but IMHO they are
unnecessarily burdensome for the case of packages which come from mirrors of
ftp.gnu.org, where we have reasonable assurance they may always be found
easily.  In addition, if someone wants the source, they may also wish to be
checking for a more up to date version, so they will need to go to the gnu
mirror anyway.

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[DJ Delorie]

> >Warning: I've not seen full sources on ftp.franken.de, which is a
> >violation of the GPL.  You'll have to get the sources those packages
> 
> Really? I thought, a pointer to the location of the sources would be
> sufficient!?!

The GNU GPL version 2 requires that all the sources needed to build a
given binary be made available via the same means as the binary.  For
FTP/WWW access, this means on the same site (I asked RMS once).  The
reasons are:

* The site where you got the sources may not be reachable by someone
  who downloads the binaries from your site.

* The sources may be removed from the original site, leaving your
  binaries in violation of the GPL.  This happens often when software
  is upgraded and the old versions are removed.

RMS has hinted that GPL 3 may allow for ftp/www delivery of sources
when the binary is distributed via hard media, but the ftp/www site
must still be controlled by the distributor to ensure that the sources
remain available for the minimum required time (three years).

> Besides that IMHO you have to provide the sources *on* *request*!

Not quite.  You have to provide a *written* offer to provide the
sources.  You can't do that via ftp/www, so that option isn't
available to ftp/www binary distributions.  The only way to satisfy
the GPL when you use ftp/www is to put the sources with the binaries
so that the user can download them both at the same time.

> For many of the packages there are in fact also source packages in
> the same directory.

This is good.

> There are no sources on ftp.franken.de for packages, where the
> orginal source package has been used without modifications.

Irrelevent.  The GPL requires that *you* are responsible for
distributing the sources.  You can't rely on someone else to
distribute the sources unless they agree be held responsible, and even
then you'd need to do the offer in writing.

> In this case there is only a pointer to a location, where you can
> get the sources.

What happens if those sources go away?  You immediately violate the
GPL if/when that happens.

> If not, please tell me, what I have to do to fullfill the GPL! There was
> no intention to violate it.

Simple.  Each tar/zip containing binaries must have a corresponding
tar/zip of the sources, at the same site.  This is what djgpp does,
this is what you should do.  If you ever remove the package, you
remove both the source and binary at the same time.  When you
distribute via ftp/www, the three year offer doesn't count - the user
should download both the sources and binaries at the same time if they
want them.  They aren't required to take the sources, but you are
required to make them available whenever the binaries are available.

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Michael Hirmke]

Hi DJ,

[...]
>> and all the other ports available at ftp.franken.de
>
>Warning: I've not seen full sources on ftp.franken.de, which is a
>violation of the GPL.  You'll have to get the sources those packages

Really? I thought, a pointer to the location of the sources would be
sufficient!?! Besides that IMHO you have to provide the sources *on*
*request*! For many of the packages there are in fact also source
packages in the same directory - there are no sources on ftp.franken.de
for packages, where the orginal source package has been used without
modifications. In this case there is only a pointer to a location, where
you can get the sources.
If not, please tell me, what I have to do to fullfill the GPL! There was
no intention to violate it.

[...]

Bye.
Michael.
--
Michael Hirmke           | Telefon +49 (911) 557999
Georg-Strobel-Strasse 81 | FAX     +49 (911) 557664
90489 Nuernberg          | E-Mail  mailto:mh@mike.franken.de
                         | WWW     http://aquarius.franken.de/

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Suhaib M. Siddiqi]

survey


>On Sun, 7 Mar 1999, Suhaib M. Siddiqi wrote:
>
>> A CD like Red Hat and SuSE will not be violation of Cygwin GPL
license?
>
>from http://sourceware.cygnus.com/cygwin/COPYING :
>
>"Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
>have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
>this service if you wish),"
>

In that case, put me on the "yes" list too.
Suhaib


>And please put me on the "yes, it's a good idea" list, since I have on
my
>list of things to do "burn Cygwin install CD" :-)
>
>--
>   Tripp Lilley + Innovative Workflow Engineering, Inc. +
(tripp@iweinc.com)
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
>  "When applying any correction, you should be swift, firm, without
anger
>   or frustration and not carry a grudge."
>
>--
>   jane h. kilberg in http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=448336391
>
>
>
>--
>Want to unsubscribe from this list?
>Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com
>
>



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Tripp Lilley]

On Sun, 7 Mar 1999, Suhaib M. Siddiqi wrote:

> A CD like Red Hat and SuSE will not be violation of Cygwin GPL license?
 
from http://sourceware.cygnus.com/cygwin/COPYING :

"Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
this service if you wish),"

And please put me on the "yes, it's a good idea" list, since I have on my
list of things to do "burn Cygwin install CD" :-)

--
   Tripp Lilley + Innovative Workflow Engineering, Inc. + (tripp@iweinc.com)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  "When applying any correction, you should be swift, firm, without anger
   or frustration and not carry a grudge."

-- 
   jane h. kilberg in http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=448336391



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[DJ Delorie]

> A CD like Red Hat and SuSE will not be violation of Cygwin GPL license?

Redhat and SuSE are themselves distributed under the terms of the GNU
GPL.  Cygwin is distributed under the terms of the GNU GPL, so as long
as you follow the GNU GPL's terms, distributions are OK.

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[DJ Delorie]

> I have planned this for about a year and now I would like to hear
> from other cygwin users what they think about it. Mostly I'm
> interested in the opinion of the cygwin core developers.
>
> We would like to compile a set of files containing
> 
>     - latest cygwin full.exe distrbution
>     - latest pre-compiled egcs replacement

No problem here, these are all GPL.  Just remember that you must
include all the sources that go with them.  This means that if you
have multiple copies of the cygwin dll, you must have multiple copies
of the sources for the dll as well.

I strongly recommend reading the DJGPP FAQ about redistribution for
some things that djgpp has "noticed" over the years about how to put
together a well-received distribution of something like djgpp or
cygwin.

>     - latest cygwin-snapshots

I wouldn't recommend this, except perhaps to put them in a directory
that's clearly labelled EXPERIMENTAL.  We don't even check these
snapshots before posting them, and except for the ChangeLogs there's
no documentation about them.

>     - pre-compiled libraries and headers for /usr/local/include and
> /usr/local/lib
>         - like X11R6.4, crypt, ncurses, gmp, readline, gd, ...
>     - pre-compiled applications for /usr/local/
>         - like X11R6.4, XEmacs, LyX, GIMP, mSQL, PostgreSQL, Apache,
> inetutils, ssh

Be careful about distribution terms.  Anything compiled with cygwin
must be distributed under the terms of the GPL - not just the terms of
the application itself.  This means that *all* applications on the CD
*must* include full sources, not just patches.  You can't distribute
anything whose distribution terms are incompatible with the GPL.

Also, ssh can't be exported from the USA and other countries might
have restrictions also.  Safest to just leave it off.

> and all the other ports available at ftp.franken.de

Warning: I've not seen full sources on ftp.franken.de, which is a
violation of the GPL.  You'll have to get the sources those packages
were compiled with, verify that the sources you have actually build
the executables you are distributing (usually by rebuilding), and ship
them together.

>     - any available sources for the pre-compiled cygwin ports

That should be *all*, if you are distributing the binaries for them.
The GPL requires it.

>     - cygwin documentation

No problem here, I think.  There isn't much anyway :(

>     - a HTML mirror of the complete mailing list contents

Good luck.  Please don't mirror my site, as that would put a pretty
heavy load on my server, and the URLs won't be valid Win32 file names
(they have colons in them, and are cgi-generated).  There are about
22,000 messages, which would mean 22,000 hits to a *cgi* on my server
to download them all.  I don't see the benefit to this either, since
the web versions have search engines and are continuously updated.

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Suhaib M. Siddiqi]

>I have planned this for about a year and now I would like to hear from
>other cygwin users what they think about it. Mostly I'm interested in
>the opinion of the cygwin core developers.
>
>We would like to compile a set of files containing
>
>    - latest cygwin full.exe distrbution
>    - latest pre-compiled egcs replacement
>    - latest cygwin-snapshots
>    - pre-compiled libraries and headers for /usr/local/include and
>/usr/local/lib
>        - like X11R6.4, crypt, ncurses, gmp, readline, gd, ...
>    - pre-compiled applications for /usr/local/
>        - like X11R6.4, XEmacs, LyX, GIMP, mSQL, PostgreSQL, Apache,
>inetutils, ssh
>
>and all the other ports available at ftp.franken.de
>
>    - any available sources for the pre-compiled cygwin ports
>    - cygwin documentation
>    - a HTML mirror of the complete mailing list contents
>
>to a Cygwin DEV (Development Environment) CD-ROM like the RedHat or
SuSE
>Linux distributions. This package should enable users to install Cygwin
>on a clean Win32 system with all required software allready available
>via CD.


A CD like Red Hat and SuSE will not be violation of Cygwin GPL license?

Just a question.




>
>Currently all files should fit on a single CD. There won't be a CD
>distribution (at least for now), but we will provide the complete set
of
>files for burning such a CD from our web site (and hopefully some
>mirrors around the world).
>
>We would like to use the latest InstallShield version, so new users may
>install the base Cygwin b20.1 distrbition and any other components very
>modular via InstallShield selection windows.
>
>Any comments towards this idea are very welcome.
>
>Regards,
>Stipe
>
>--
>Stipe Tolj <tolj@uni-duesseldorf.de>
>
>Cygwin Porting Project -- "We build UNIX on top of Windows"
> http://www.student.uni-koeln.de/cygwin/
>
>Department of Economical Computer Science
>University of Cologne, Germany
>
>
>
>
>--
>Want to unsubscribe from this list?
>Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com
>
>



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

[ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Stipe Tolj]

I have planned this for about a year and now I would like to hear from
other cygwin users what they think about it. Mostly I'm interested in
the opinion of the cygwin core developers.

We would like to compile a set of files containing

    - latest cygwin full.exe distrbution
    - latest pre-compiled egcs replacement
    - latest cygwin-snapshots
    - pre-compiled libraries and headers for /usr/local/include and
/usr/local/lib
        - like X11R6.4, crypt, ncurses, gmp, readline, gd, ...
    - pre-compiled applications for /usr/local/
        - like X11R6.4, XEmacs, LyX, GIMP, mSQL, PostgreSQL, Apache,
inetutils, ssh

and all the other ports available at ftp.franken.de

    - any available sources for the pre-compiled cygwin ports
    - cygwin documentation
    - a HTML mirror of the complete mailing list contents

to a Cygwin DEV (Development Environment) CD-ROM like the RedHat or SuSE
Linux distributions. This package should enable users to install Cygwin
on a clean Win32 system with all required software allready available
via CD.

Currently all files should fit on a single CD. There won't be a CD
distribution (at least for now), but we will provide the complete set of
files for burning such a CD from our web site (and hopefully some
mirrors around the world).

We would like to use the latest InstallShield version, so new users may
install the base Cygwin b20.1 distrbition and any other components very
modular via InstallShield selection windows.

Any comments towards this idea are very welcome.

Regards,
Stipe

--
Stipe Tolj <tolj@uni-duesseldorf.de>

Cygwin Porting Project -- "We build UNIX on top of Windows"
http://www.student.uni-koeln.de/cygwin/

Department of Economical Computer Science
University of Cologne, Germany




--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com