From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steve Morris To: cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Re: Cygwin license Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 09:57:00 -0000 Message-id: <199903161757.MAA12041@brocade.nexen.com> In-reply-to: < 19990316104140.A1113@cygnus.com > References: <19990316130132.20506.rocketmail@send105.yahoomail.com> <19990316104140.A1113@cygnus.com> <19990316104140.A1113@cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 1999-03/msg00509.html Chris Faylor writes: > >I agree with this. If an Open Source tool used as an aid in porting > >code from one platform to another doesn't allow me to honor the > >license of the code I'm porting; of what use is it to be Open Source? > >Since the first time I saw this discussed I've been uneasy about the > >license conflicts. If you (Cygnus) refuse to change the license to > >LGPL (which I and many others think should be done) at least supply > >exceptions in such cases as these. > > I don't know if you've been following RMS's thoughts on the subject but > he essentially thinks that the FSF made a mistake with the LGPL. I have seldom found RMS's thoughts to be compelling. You always have to take his adgenda into account and his adgenda is quite complex. I do suspect that without LGPL gcc would be a minor player. Every deveoper I have ever met that volunteered to work on gcc cut their gcc teeth using gcc in a place of employment that used gcc to create licensed binary distributed code. These people wouldn't be part of the free software movement without LGPL. I think RMS wants to have it both ways, the broad distribution that comes with people using gcc commercially plus the forcing of software into the free software domain. He doesn't like to admit the part that binary distributors play in supporting free software. > >What this says to me and most likely other Open Source supporters on > >this list is that Cygnus wants to _control_ all Open Source. I know > >the intent isn't this but rather a means to try to make all code using > >the cygwin tool to be Open Source unless special provision is made > >with the purchase of a special license from the owners (Cygnus) of the > >code. But, the end result speaks louder than the intentions. > Come on, Earnie. We're distributing the code under the GPL. The GPL > is very clear on what can and can't be done. RMS has spoken on the > subject of DLLs and the GPL. He's indicated that the cygwin DLL should > be GPLed. As has been stated earlier on this list it is not clear that Cygnus can restrict the distribution of code that runs under Cygwin. Courts have held in other cases that glue software required for inter-operability can be used regardless of license conflicts. Games machine manufacturers in particular cannot restrict the sale of independent cartridges even where there are apparent copyright violations in the use of glue code provided by the manufacturers. This is not to say that cygwin is an exactly parallel case but there is an important issue here. If you consider sourceware cygwin.dll to be a general platform for running UNIX code then how much right does Cygnus legally have to control the distribution of third party software for that general platform. If it is effectively impossible (i.e. prohibitively expensive) to distribute code without including Cygnus licensed glue I suspect that the license is unenforcable. In other words when Cygnus decided to make cygwin.dll freely available they probably let the cat out of the bag for third party applications. (NOTE: It would probably depend largely on the license fee arrangement. The game manufacturers wanted steep per cartridge royalties.) However it may not be in Cygnus interest to admit to any of this. In the first place it might not be true. The cases may not be parallel and I assume a competent court has not made a decision one way or another. In the second place even if it were true Cygnus is not required to make it easy for third parties to profit off of Cygnus' hard work. There is nothing illegal in distributing software under an unenforcably broad license. Most of us sign unenforcably broad non-compete agreements when we take a new job. The key for Cygnus is that they need to make money or go out of business. They will not invest in things like cygwin unless there is an income stream to pay the salaries. It is unfair to beat up on them for this simple fact of life. They are one of the few (but growing number of) companies attempting to work free software into their business plans. They may not have found the right formula with cygwin but we shouldn't abuse them for trying. That's more than other companies are doing. Think about it. If cygwin.dll is free and people can distribute third party software with out sending money to Cygnus, why the heck did they waste their stakeholders money investing in it. I personally hope that my legal arguement is invalid and that Cygnus' two track release strategy is legally supportable, i.e. you can use the sourceware version of cygwin to develop sourceware, and the commercial version to develop commercial software. Commercial vendors end up paying for the support of sourceware. In other words my legal hat is having a major arguement with my sourceware hat. Am I showing signs of split personality? ;-) Steve Morris -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steve Morris To: cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Re: Cygwin license Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 19:45:00 -0000 Message-ID: <199903161757.MAA12041@brocade.nexen.com> References: <19990316130132.20506.rocketmail@send105.yahoomail.com> <19990316104140.A1113@cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 1999-03n/msg00509.html Message-ID: <19990331194500.fxVtQiw9MxNF8p2Q-MKWgw2JaqBDSiH4pvyPGuPz214@z> Chris Faylor writes: > >I agree with this. If an Open Source tool used as an aid in porting > >code from one platform to another doesn't allow me to honor the > >license of the code I'm porting; of what use is it to be Open Source? > >Since the first time I saw this discussed I've been uneasy about the > >license conflicts. If you (Cygnus) refuse to change the license to > >LGPL (which I and many others think should be done) at least supply > >exceptions in such cases as these. > > I don't know if you've been following RMS's thoughts on the subject but > he essentially thinks that the FSF made a mistake with the LGPL. I have seldom found RMS's thoughts to be compelling. You always have to take his adgenda into account and his adgenda is quite complex. I do suspect that without LGPL gcc would be a minor player. Every deveoper I have ever met that volunteered to work on gcc cut their gcc teeth using gcc in a place of employment that used gcc to create licensed binary distributed code. These people wouldn't be part of the free software movement without LGPL. I think RMS wants to have it both ways, the broad distribution that comes with people using gcc commercially plus the forcing of software into the free software domain. He doesn't like to admit the part that binary distributors play in supporting free software. > >What this says to me and most likely other Open Source supporters on > >this list is that Cygnus wants to _control_ all Open Source. I know > >the intent isn't this but rather a means to try to make all code using > >the cygwin tool to be Open Source unless special provision is made > >with the purchase of a special license from the owners (Cygnus) of the > >code. But, the end result speaks louder than the intentions. > Come on, Earnie. We're distributing the code under the GPL. The GPL > is very clear on what can and can't be done. RMS has spoken on the > subject of DLLs and the GPL. He's indicated that the cygwin DLL should > be GPLed. As has been stated earlier on this list it is not clear that Cygnus can restrict the distribution of code that runs under Cygwin. Courts have held in other cases that glue software required for inter-operability can be used regardless of license conflicts. Games machine manufacturers in particular cannot restrict the sale of independent cartridges even where there are apparent copyright violations in the use of glue code provided by the manufacturers. This is not to say that cygwin is an exactly parallel case but there is an important issue here. If you consider sourceware cygwin.dll to be a general platform for running UNIX code then how much right does Cygnus legally have to control the distribution of third party software for that general platform. If it is effectively impossible (i.e. prohibitively expensive) to distribute code without including Cygnus licensed glue I suspect that the license is unenforcable. In other words when Cygnus decided to make cygwin.dll freely available they probably let the cat out of the bag for third party applications. (NOTE: It would probably depend largely on the license fee arrangement. The game manufacturers wanted steep per cartridge royalties.) However it may not be in Cygnus interest to admit to any of this. In the first place it might not be true. The cases may not be parallel and I assume a competent court has not made a decision one way or another. In the second place even if it were true Cygnus is not required to make it easy for third parties to profit off of Cygnus' hard work. There is nothing illegal in distributing software under an unenforcably broad license. Most of us sign unenforcably broad non-compete agreements when we take a new job. The key for Cygnus is that they need to make money or go out of business. They will not invest in things like cygwin unless there is an income stream to pay the salaries. It is unfair to beat up on them for this simple fact of life. They are one of the few (but growing number of) companies attempting to work free software into their business plans. They may not have found the right formula with cygwin but we shouldn't abuse them for trying. That's more than other companies are doing. Think about it. If cygwin.dll is free and people can distribute third party software with out sending money to Cygnus, why the heck did they waste their stakeholders money investing in it. I personally hope that my legal arguement is invalid and that Cygnus' two track release strategy is legally supportable, i.e. you can use the sourceware version of cygwin to develop sourceware, and the commercial version to develop commercial software. Commercial vendors end up paying for the support of sourceware. In other words my legal hat is having a major arguement with my sourceware hat. Am I showing signs of split personality? ;-) Steve Morris -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com