RE: Cygwin license

RE: Cygwin license

[Bernard Dautrevaux]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1895 bytes --]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Faylor [ mailto:cgf@cygnus.com ]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 1999 4:42 PM
> To: Earnie Boyd
> Cc: G.Heiser@unsw.edu.au; cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com
> Subject: Re: Cygwin license
> 

	...

> We do consider changing the licensing from time to time but, 
> so far, no
> one has been able to convince the powers that be at Cygnus that making
> cygwin into a LGPLed program would be worthwhile.  It would certainly
> remove some of the incentive for buying the commercial product but,
> perhaps more importantly, it would allow people to produce proprietary
> applications based on the cygwin DLL.  That does not sound like a good
> plan to me.

But a good plan is having Cygwin get some Kbucks (I've heard 8K$? is
that true) to allow "produce proprietary applications based on the
cygwin DLL"?... This seems a bit hard to defend:

Either you are strongly supporting open source and do NOT want anybody
producing proprietary code based on cygwin and then you should stop
selling licenses to cygwin that allow that; either you think this is not
immoral and then you should not CHARGE a fee for that...

It seems having cygwin GPLed has only one objective: subvert the open
source concept by getting people test and enhance a piece of code that
is in fact proprietary Cygnus software that generates revenues to Cygnus
by selling licenses to use a GPLed product.

Excuse me if I'm a bit confused, but the situation is confusing...



Best regards,

		Bernard

--------------------------------------------
Bernard Dautrevaux
Microprocess Ingéniérie
97 bis, rue de Colombes
92400 COURBEVOIE
FRANCE
Tel:	+33 (0) 1 47 68 80 80
Fax:	+33 (0) 1 47 88 97 85
e-mail:	dautrevaux@microprocess.com
		b.dautrevaux@usa.net
-------------------------------------------- 

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

Re: Cygwin license

[DJ Delorie]

> Either you are strongly supporting open source and do NOT want anybody
> producing proprietary code based on cygwin and then you should stop
> selling licenses to cygwin that allow that;

You are making an assumption that isn't valid, then using that
assumption to prove the original statment false.

Cygnus strongly supports open source.

That doesn't mean we don't want people producing proprietary code
based on cygwin.

> It seems having cygwin GPLed has only one objective: subvert the open
> source concept by getting people test and enhance a piece of code that
> is in fact proprietary Cygnus software that generates revenues to Cygnus
> by selling licenses to use a GPLed product.

Nothing personal, but this is all wrong.  I understand that the use of
the GPL is easy to misunderstand, but such is life.  Let's see if I
can explain it:

There is a difference between the GPL and the "open source method".  I
think you're thinking of the "bazaar model" of ESR, which is
independent of the GPL.  You can use the bazaar model to produce
non-gpl software (like BSD or Apache).  You can use the cathedral
model to produce GPL software (as Cygnus does for contract customers).

In the case of Cygwin, Cygnus has multiple goals.  First, we use it
internally for running our NT-hosted software, nearly all of which is
GPL anyway (gcc, gdb, etc).  Second, we use it as a source of income
to help fund future development (me and Chris :).  Third, we provide
it to the net community in an effort to promote other groups to adopt
the GPL, and in trade for contributions.

In the latter cases, there is a trade of value.  In the second case,
we trade money for the priviledge of using cygwin in a proprietary
program.  In the third case, we trade development and testing help for
the right to use, modify, and redistribute cygwin according to the
GPL.  Note that in this case, the GPL helps *you*, not us.  The GPL
makes certain guarantees to *you* about your ability to continue using
the software regardless of our desires.  The only thing it does for us
is ensure that no other proprietary program can use that version,
which both promotes the GPL itself and ensures that license sales will
continue to be able to support our development staff.

In no case are we trying to "subvert the open source method".  We
think you are getting fair value for your efforts, and by releasing
the code under the GPL we guarantee that we cannot "subvert" anything,
as the GPL governs distribution after that point.

Neither are we selling licenses to GPL code.  As the authors of the
code, Cygnus has the right to distribute multiple versions under
different licenses (note that this is why we require legal papers
assigning copyright to us before accepting major contributions).  When
we create a distribution for the net, it becomes GPL'd *when* we
release it, not before.  When we create a GNUPro licensed
distribution, it becomes a licensed distribution *when* we sell it,
not before.

I'd also like to point out that cygwin wouldn't exist at all if it
weren't for GNUPro and license sales.  So, if you are benefitting from
cygwin, you should thank those licensed copies for it.

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

Re: Cygwin license

[Charles Wilson]

Bernard Dautrevaux wrote:

> But a good plan is having Cygwin get some Kbucks (I've heard 8K$? is
> that true) to allow "produce proprietary applications based on the
> cygwin DLL"?... This seems a bit hard to defend:
>
> Either you are strongly supporting open source and do NOT want anybody
> producing proprietary code based on cygwin and then you should stop
> selling licenses to cygwin that allow that; either you think this is not
> immoral and then you should not CHARGE a fee for that...
>
> It seems having cygwin GPLed has only one objective: subvert the open
> source concept by getting people test and enhance a piece of code that
> is in fact proprietary Cygnus software that generates revenues to Cygnus
> by selling licenses to use a GPLed product.
>
> Excuse me if I'm a bit confused, but the situation is confusing...

No no no. Think "free speech" (libre) not "free beer" (gratis). The GPL was
NOT invented to allow people to get software without paying for it. The
purpose of the GPL is to insure that anyone who uses the code, can obtain
and modify the source code in perpetuity. Therefore, if I download libre
software, and modify it, I am legally bound to allow others also to
download my modified source so that they can modify it as well. If I
provide binary (GPL'ed) software, I am legally bound also to provide the
source, to preserve my users' freedom.

As to the Cygnus case - they own the software. They are perfectly within
their rights to allow people to use it under two different licenses. One
(the GPL) preserves all users' freedoms by requiring source distribution.
Therefore, if I use the cygwin stuff under the GPL, and write (or port)
code to run under cygwin, I *must* release my code under the GPL; this
preserves everyone's freedom to obtain, and modify, the source.

On the other hand, if I want to write and distribute closed-source software
using the cygwin stuff (regardless of whether I charge money for it or not)
I can't do that under the GPL. Therefore, Cygnus offers another license.
Now, why would I want to distribute closed source software? Probably
because I want to charge money for it - therefore, my likely reason for
creating non-libre software is because it's also non-gratis. If I am going
to make money from software built on cygwin, using Cygnus's non-GPL
license, why shouldn't Cygnus get some of that money since they made it
possible? Thus, it's perfectly reasonable for Cygnus to charge for the
non-GPL license.

Okay, so Cygnus can make money by distributing software under two different
licenses. Why should we (libre software developers) "test and enhance"
their "proprietary" software? Because ONE of those licenses is the GPL -
and that insures that our contributions will always be libre - and since
the libre cygwin is available gratis now, it will always be available
gratis as long as someone sets aside the web space for it. If Cygnus ever
decided to withdraw the GPL license, cygwin would still be libre -
open-source developers would just fork the development, and continue
developing the GPL'ed cygwin somewhere other than sourceware.cygnus.com.
But if that happened, Cygnus would not be able to use the GPL'ed
enhancements in their non-GPL version, so they'd just be shooting
themselves in the foot. The current arrangement seems (IMHO) to be the best
of both worlds - we get software that's both libre and gratis, and Cygnus
gets to make money from the same software under a non-libre, non-gratis
license.

--Chuck



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

Re: Cygwin license

[DJ Delorie]

> I am legally bound to allow others also to download my modified
> source so that they can modify it as well.

The GPL doesn't require this.  It only requires that *if* you
distribute a binary, *then* you must distribute the source for that
binary.  You could take a copy of cygwin (which is GPL), edit it to
your heart's content, and never let anyone ever have a copy of your
modified version.

If you gave someone one of those modified dlls, it's a different story.

The GPL doesn't make you give out sources, it just stops you from
giving out binaries without sources.

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

Re: Cygwin license

[DJ Delorie]

> I am legally bound to allow others also to download my modified
> source so that they can modify it as well.

The GPL doesn't require this.  It only requires that *if* you
distribute a binary, *then* you must distribute the source for that
binary.  You could take a copy of cygwin (which is GPL), edit it to
your heart's content, and never let anyone ever have a copy of your
modified version.

If you gave someone one of those modified dlls, it's a different story.

The GPL doesn't make you give out sources, it just stops you from
giving out binaries without sources.

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

RE: Cygwin license

[Bernard Dautrevaux]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1896 bytes --]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Faylor [ mailto:cgf@cygnus.com ]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 1999 4:42 PM
> To: Earnie Boyd
> Cc: G.Heiser@unsw.edu.au; cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com
> Subject: Re: Cygwin license
> 

	...

> We do consider changing the licensing from time to time but, 
> so far, no
> one has been able to convince the powers that be at Cygnus that making
> cygwin into a LGPLed program would be worthwhile.  It would certainly
> remove some of the incentive for buying the commercial product but,
> perhaps more importantly, it would allow people to produce proprietary
> applications based on the cygwin DLL.  That does not sound like a good
> plan to me.

But a good plan is having Cygwin get some Kbucks (I've heard 8K$? is
that true) to allow "produce proprietary applications based on the
cygwin DLL"?... This seems a bit hard to defend:

Either you are strongly supporting open source and do NOT want anybody
producing proprietary code based on cygwin and then you should stop
selling licenses to cygwin that allow that; either you think this is not
immoral and then you should not CHARGE a fee for that...

It seems having cygwin GPLed has only one objective: subvert the open
source concept by getting people test and enhance a piece of code that
is in fact proprietary Cygnus software that generates revenues to Cygnus
by selling licenses to use a GPLed product.

Excuse me if I'm a bit confused, but the situation is confusing...



Best regards,

		Bernard

--------------------------------------------
Bernard Dautrevaux
Microprocess Ingéniérie
97 bis, rue de Colombes
92400 COURBEVOIE
FRANCE
Tel:	+33 (0) 1 47 68 80 80
Fax:	+33 (0) 1 47 88 97 85
e-mail:	dautrevaux@microprocess.com
		b.dautrevaux@usa.net
-------------------------------------------- 

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

Re: Cygwin license

[Charles Wilson]

Bernard Dautrevaux wrote:

> But a good plan is having Cygwin get some Kbucks (I've heard 8K$? is
> that true) to allow "produce proprietary applications based on the
> cygwin DLL"?... This seems a bit hard to defend:
>
> Either you are strongly supporting open source and do NOT want anybody
> producing proprietary code based on cygwin and then you should stop
> selling licenses to cygwin that allow that; either you think this is not
> immoral and then you should not CHARGE a fee for that...
>
> It seems having cygwin GPLed has only one objective: subvert the open
> source concept by getting people test and enhance a piece of code that
> is in fact proprietary Cygnus software that generates revenues to Cygnus
> by selling licenses to use a GPLed product.
>
> Excuse me if I'm a bit confused, but the situation is confusing...

No no no. Think "free speech" (libre) not "free beer" (gratis). The GPL was
NOT invented to allow people to get software without paying for it. The
purpose of the GPL is to insure that anyone who uses the code, can obtain
and modify the source code in perpetuity. Therefore, if I download libre
software, and modify it, I am legally bound to allow others also to
download my modified source so that they can modify it as well. If I
provide binary (GPL'ed) software, I am legally bound also to provide the
source, to preserve my users' freedom.

As to the Cygnus case - they own the software. They are perfectly within
their rights to allow people to use it under two different licenses. One
(the GPL) preserves all users' freedoms by requiring source distribution.
Therefore, if I use the cygwin stuff under the GPL, and write (or port)
code to run under cygwin, I *must* release my code under the GPL; this
preserves everyone's freedom to obtain, and modify, the source.

On the other hand, if I want to write and distribute closed-source software
using the cygwin stuff (regardless of whether I charge money for it or not)
I can't do that under the GPL. Therefore, Cygnus offers another license.
Now, why would I want to distribute closed source software? Probably
because I want to charge money for it - therefore, my likely reason for
creating non-libre software is because it's also non-gratis. If I am going
to make money from software built on cygwin, using Cygnus's non-GPL
license, why shouldn't Cygnus get some of that money since they made it
possible? Thus, it's perfectly reasonable for Cygnus to charge for the
non-GPL license.

Okay, so Cygnus can make money by distributing software under two different
licenses. Why should we (libre software developers) "test and enhance"
their "proprietary" software? Because ONE of those licenses is the GPL -
and that insures that our contributions will always be libre - and since
the libre cygwin is available gratis now, it will always be available
gratis as long as someone sets aside the web space for it. If Cygnus ever
decided to withdraw the GPL license, cygwin would still be libre -
open-source developers would just fork the development, and continue
developing the GPL'ed cygwin somewhere other than sourceware.cygnus.com.
But if that happened, Cygnus would not be able to use the GPL'ed
enhancements in their non-GPL version, so they'd just be shooting
themselves in the foot. The current arrangement seems (IMHO) to be the best
of both worlds - we get software that's both libre and gratis, and Cygnus
gets to make money from the same software under a non-libre, non-gratis
license.

--Chuck



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

Re: Cygwin license

[DJ Delorie]

> Either you are strongly supporting open source and do NOT want anybody
> producing proprietary code based on cygwin and then you should stop
> selling licenses to cygwin that allow that;

You are making an assumption that isn't valid, then using that
assumption to prove the original statment false.

Cygnus strongly supports open source.

That doesn't mean we don't want people producing proprietary code
based on cygwin.

> It seems having cygwin GPLed has only one objective: subvert the open
> source concept by getting people test and enhance a piece of code that
> is in fact proprietary Cygnus software that generates revenues to Cygnus
> by selling licenses to use a GPLed product.

Nothing personal, but this is all wrong.  I understand that the use of
the GPL is easy to misunderstand, but such is life.  Let's see if I
can explain it:

There is a difference between the GPL and the "open source method".  I
think you're thinking of the "bazaar model" of ESR, which is
independent of the GPL.  You can use the bazaar model to produce
non-gpl software (like BSD or Apache).  You can use the cathedral
model to produce GPL software (as Cygnus does for contract customers).

In the case of Cygwin, Cygnus has multiple goals.  First, we use it
internally for running our NT-hosted software, nearly all of which is
GPL anyway (gcc, gdb, etc).  Second, we use it as a source of income
to help fund future development (me and Chris :).  Third, we provide
it to the net community in an effort to promote other groups to adopt
the GPL, and in trade for contributions.

In the latter cases, there is a trade of value.  In the second case,
we trade money for the priviledge of using cygwin in a proprietary
program.  In the third case, we trade development and testing help for
the right to use, modify, and redistribute cygwin according to the
GPL.  Note that in this case, the GPL helps *you*, not us.  The GPL
makes certain guarantees to *you* about your ability to continue using
the software regardless of our desires.  The only thing it does for us
is ensure that no other proprietary program can use that version,
which both promotes the GPL itself and ensures that license sales will
continue to be able to support our development staff.

In no case are we trying to "subvert the open source method".  We
think you are getting fair value for your efforts, and by releasing
the code under the GPL we guarantee that we cannot "subvert" anything,
as the GPL governs distribution after that point.

Neither are we selling licenses to GPL code.  As the authors of the
code, Cygnus has the right to distribute multiple versions under
different licenses (note that this is why we require legal papers
assigning copyright to us before accepting major contributions).  When
we create a distribution for the net, it becomes GPL'd *when* we
release it, not before.  When we create a GNUPro licensed
distribution, it becomes a licensed distribution *when* we sell it,
not before.

I'd also like to point out that cygwin wouldn't exist at all if it
weren't for GNUPro and license sales.  So, if you are benefitting from
cygwin, you should thank those licensed copies for it.

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

Re: cygwin license

[Christopher Faylor]

On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 08:33:19PM -0800, Randall R Schulz wrote:
>At 20:21 2003-04-02, you wrote:
>>Randall R Schulz wrote:
>>
>>>>Good answer.  You've earned the star.
>>>
>>>Wow. Praise from Caesar. I'm in heaven.
>>
>>And, as in the days of Rome, during the conquering hero's triumphal 
>>parade a slave would ride in the chariot with him.  As the cheering 
>>throng tossed flowers in the hero's path, the slave would whisper in 
>>his ear over and over:
>>
>>"This too shall pass."
>
>How apt.
>
>One can only hope.

Whenever I heard that story, I always thought they were talking about
bowel movements.  Now, I'm thinking I might have missed the point.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: cygwin license

[Randall R Schulz]

At 20:21 2003-04-02, you wrote:
>Randall R Schulz wrote:
>
>>>Good answer.  You've earned the star.
>>
>>Wow. Praise from Caesar. I'm in heaven.
>
>And, as in the days of Rome, during the conquering hero's triumphal 
>parade a slave would ride in the chariot with him.  As the cheering 
>throng tossed flowers in the hero's path, the slave would whisper in 
>his ear over and over:
>
>"This too shall pass."

How apt.

One can only hope.


><g>
>
>--Chuck\


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: cygwin license

[Igor Pechtchanski]

On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Charles Wilson wrote:

> Randall R Schulz wrote:
>
> >> Good answer.  You've earned the star.
> >
> > Wow. Praise from Caesar. I'm in heaven.
>
> And, as in the days of Rome, during the conquering hero's triumphal
> parade a slave would ride in the chariot with him.  As the cheering
> throng tossed flowers in the hero's path, the slave would whisper in his
> ear over and over:
>
> "This too shall pass."
> <g>
>
> --Chuck

Yes, but did you ever wonder why they had a *slave* doing that? ;-)
	Igor
-- 
				http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_		pechtcha@cs.nyu.edu
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_		igor@watson.ibm.com
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		Igor Pechtchanski
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL	a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty.
  -- Leto II


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: cygwin license

[Charles Wilson]

Randall R Schulz wrote:

>> Good answer.  You've earned the star.
> 
> 
> Wow. Praise from Caesar. I'm in heaven.

And, as in the days of Rome, during the conquering hero's triumphal 
parade a slave would ride in the chariot with him.  As the cheering 
throng tossed flowers in the hero's path, the slave would whisper in his 
ear over and over:

"This too shall pass."
<g>

--Chuck



--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: cygwin license

[Randall R Schulz]

Igor,

At 13:34 2003-04-02, you wrote:
>On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Randall R Schulz wrote:
>
> > At 10:40 2003-04-02, you wrote:
> > >On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 07:30:31AM -0800, Randall R Schulz wrote:
> > > >[ To CGF: In partial fulfillment of my assigned penance for suggesting
> > > >I would cease to use Cygwin in favor of Linux because of my fear of MS
> > > >spy-ware. ]
> > >
> > >Good answer.  You've earned the star.
> >
> > Wow. Praise from Caesar. I'm in heaven.
> >
> > >cgf
> >
> > RRS
>
>Shall I change the star to say "Randy"? ];->
>     Igor


Now, now. Randall does the good stuff. Randy is the naughty alter-ego. 
We don't want to encourage Randy, do we?


Randall Schulz 


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: cygwin license

[Igor Pechtchanski]

On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Randall R Schulz wrote:

> At 10:40 2003-04-02, you wrote:
> >On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 07:30:31AM -0800, Randall R Schulz wrote:
> > >[ To CGF: In partial fulfillment of my assigned penance for suggesting
> > >I would cease to use Cygwin in favor of Linux because of my fear of MS
> > >spy-ware. ]
> >
> >Good answer.  You've earned the star.
>
> Wow. Praise from Caesar. I'm in heaven.
>
> >cgf
>
> RRS

Shall I change the star to say "Randy"? ];->
	Igor
-- 
				http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_		pechtcha@cs.nyu.edu
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_		igor@watson.ibm.com
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		Igor Pechtchanski
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL	a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty.
  -- Leto II


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: cygwin license

[Randall R Schulz]

At 10:40 2003-04-02, you wrote:
>On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 07:30:31AM -0800, Randall R Schulz wrote:
> >[ To CGF: In partial fulfillment of my assigned penance for suggesting
> >I would cease to use Cygwin in favor of Linux because of my fear of MS
> >spy-ware. ]
>
>Good answer.  You've earned the star.

Wow. Praise from Caesar. I'm in heaven.


>cgf


RRS 


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: cygwin license

[Christopher Faylor]

On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 07:30:31AM -0800, Randall R Schulz wrote:
>[ To CGF: In partial fulfillment of my assigned penance for suggesting 
>I would cease to use Cygwin in favor of Linux because of my fear of MS 
>spy-ware. ]

Good answer.  You've earned the star.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: cygwin license

[Randall R Schulz]

Ehud,

[ To CGF: In partial fulfillment of my assigned penance for suggesting 
I would cease to use Cygwin in favor of Linux because of my fear of MS 
spy-ware. ]


At 04:44 2003-04-02, you wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>...
>
>I'm intending to do a similar thing - to make a CD with some Cygwin 
>programs and libraries and some other (proprietary) programs NOT 
>linked to the Cygwin libraries. The sources for all the Cygwin 
>programs and libraries will be on the same CD.

Conventional, non-legalistic wisdom is that this would be an acceptable 
discharging of the GPL requirements to provide all sources necessary to 
rebuild programs that include GPL-ed content.


>I thought that this satisfy the GPL and I don't have to have a license 
>from Red Hat. Please confirm or correct me.

Disclaimers
- I do not work for and cannot speak for Redhat
- I am not a lawyer
- Pointing to this mail will not serve as a defense if following this 
so-called advice gets you in trouble.

You may safely ignore me.


I will leave it to others to comment on the technical merits of using 
Cygwin without its intended installation and setup procedures.


>Ehud.


Randall Schulz



>Appendix - detailed description of the software distributed
>- -----------------------------------------------------------
>
>This distribution is of the SSH client. Only the following executable
>are needed: ssh.exe cygwin1.dll cygz.dll cygcrypto-0.9.7.dll.
>If rxvt window is preferred (easier support for Hebrew font and other
>niceties) then rxvt.exe and libW11.dll are also needed. NO registry
>setting or special directories (like /tmp or /etc) are needed.
>
>On the CD I put the following sources: cygwin-1.3.22-1-src.tar.bz2
>openssh-3.6.1p1-1-src.tar.bz2 openssl-0.9.7a-3-src.tar.bz2
>rxvt-2.7.10-2-src.tar.bz2 zlib-1.1.4-1-src.tar.bz2 .
>
>The running batch file is:
>
>c:
>set PATH=c:\tty\cygwin\bin
>set HOME=/cygdrive/c/tty
>
>cd \tty\cygwin\bin
>rxvt -fn "-*-Web Hebrew Monospace-normal-r-*-*-15-*-*-*-c-*-iso8859-1"
>- -geometry 120x46+0+0 -bg "navyblue" -fg "yellow" -sl 350 -e ssh -v %1
>
>
>Of course the rxvt command is on one line. There is a config file in
>the $HOME/.ssh that has all the targets.
>
>
>- --
>  Ehud Karni


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: cygwin license

[Ehud Karni]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 1 Apr 2003 20:55:09 -0500, Christopher Faylor <cgf@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> I've forwarded this request to our sales organization.
> 
> On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 04:37:21AM +0400, Dmitri Dmitrienko wrote:
> >Hello people developing Cygwin.
> >
> >I'm deeply impressed with all things you made with GNU tools when ported
> >them into Win32 platform.
> >We're interested in including some certain tools with our own commercial
> >software.
> >We consider two possible ways:
> >a) shipping your tools as a separated package that would be shipped
> >separately with our own installer.
> >b) including your software into existing package.
> >Mainly we're interested in ssh client, sshd daemon and all libraries that
> >would allow them to run including cygwin dll itself.
> >
> >Please advice if it is possible and what conditions could be.

I'm intending to do a similar thing - to make a CD with some Cygwin
programs and libraries and some other (proprietary) programs NOT linked
to the Cygwin libraries. The sources for all the Cygwin programs and
libraries will be on the same CD.

I thought that this satisfy the GPL and I don't have to have a
license from Red Hat. Please confirm or correct me.

Ehud.



Appendix - detailed description of the software distributed
- -----------------------------------------------------------

This distribution is of the SSH client. Only the following executable
are needed: ssh.exe cygwin1.dll cygz.dll cygcrypto-0.9.7.dll.
If rxvt window is preferred (easier support for Hebrew font and other
niceties) then rxvt.exe and libW11.dll are also needed. NO registry
setting or special directories (like /tmp or /etc) are needed.

On the CD I put the following sources: cygwin-1.3.22-1-src.tar.bz2
openssh-3.6.1p1-1-src.tar.bz2 openssl-0.9.7a-3-src.tar.bz2
rxvt-2.7.10-2-src.tar.bz2 zlib-1.1.4-1-src.tar.bz2 .

The running batch file is:

c:
set PATH=c:\tty\cygwin\bin
set HOME=/cygdrive/c/tty

cd \tty\cygwin\bin
rxvt -fn "-*-Web Hebrew Monospace-normal-r-*-*-15-*-*-*-c-*-iso8859-1"
- -geometry 120x46+0+0 -bg "navyblue" -fg "yellow" -sl 350 -e ssh -v %1


Of course the rxvt command is on one line. There is a config file in
the $HOME/.ssh that has all the targets.


- -- 
 Ehud Karni           Tel: +972-3-7966-561  /"\
 Mivtach - Simon      Fax: +972-3-7966-667  \ /  ASCII Ribbon Campaign
 Insurance agencies   (USA) voice mail and   X   Against   HTML   Mail
 http://www.mvs.co.il  FAX:  1-815-5509341  / \
 mailto:ehud@unix.mvs.co.il                  Better  Safe  Than  Sorry
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: use http://www.keyserver.net/ to get my key (and others)

iD8DBQE+ittALFvTvpjqOY0RAsVZAJ4kpsURA5VfO3KfCx1gnRkfXZLMwACaAlL8
1xZpamKkQzKKH0QxAMJKu94=
=hdc3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: cygwin license

[Christopher Faylor]

I've forwarded this request to our sales organization.

On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 04:37:21AM +0400, Dmitri Dmitrienko wrote:
>Hello people developing Cygwin.
>
>I'm deeply impressed with all things you made with GNU tools when ported
>them into Win32 platform.
>We're interested in including some certain tools with our own commercial
>software.
>We consider two possible ways:
>a) shipping your tools as a separated package that would be shipped
>separately with our own installer.
>b) including your software into existing package.
>Mainly we're interested in ssh client, sshd daemon and all libraries that
>would allow them to run including cygwin dll itself.
>
>Please advice if it is possible and what conditions could be.
>
>Thanks in advance,
>Dmitri Dmitrienko
>Lead developer,
>NuSphere Corp.

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Cygwin license

[Dmitri Dmitrienko]

Hello people developing Cygwin.

I'm deeply impressed with all things you made with GNU tools when ported
them into Win32 platform.
We're interested in including some certain tools with our own commercial
software.
We consider two possible ways:
a) shipping your tools as a separated package that would be shipped
separately with our own installer.
b) including your software into existing package.
Mainly we're interested in ssh client, sshd daemon and all libraries that
would allow them to run including cygwin dll itself.

Please advice if it is possible and what conditions could be.

Thanks in advance,
Dmitri Dmitrienko
Lead developer,
NuSphere Corp.


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: cygwin license

[Peter Buckley]

http://cygwin.com

Info wrote:

> is cygwin GPL? is it free or not? How do i get it?
> --------------------------------------------------
> WWW.XGFORCE.COM - 
> The Leader in System Clustering
> and Enterprise Firewall/VPN solution.
> --------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> --
> Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
> Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
> Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
> FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
> 
> 



--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

cygwin license

[Info]

is cygwin GPL? is it free or not? How do i get it?
--------------------------------------------------
WWW.XGFORCE.COM - 
The Leader in System Clustering
and Enterprise Firewall/VPN solution.
--------------------------------------------------


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Cygwin license

[Chris Faylor]

On Tue, May 23, 2000 at 09:22:44AM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
>> I had sent an enquiry about commercial licenses
>
>Technically, they're proprietary-use licenses.  You can already use
>cygwin in commercial programs, as long as those commercial programs
>aren't proprietary.
>
>> to pre-sales@cygnus.com (an address found on your web site) but got
>> no response.
>
>The best addresses to use are:
>
>	cygwin-info@cygnus.com
>or	info@cygnus.com

I've actually already sent this request to the person who handles this
type of activity just to cut out the cygwin-info middle ground.  So,
there is no need to send email to cygwin-info in this case.  Otherwise,
this is correct advice.

cgf

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

Re: Cygwin license

[DJ Delorie]

> I had sent an enquiry about commercial licenses

Technically, they're proprietary-use licenses.  You can already use
cygwin in commercial programs, as long as those commercial programs
aren't proprietary.

> to pre-sales@cygnus.com (an address found on your web site) but got
> no response.

The best addresses to use are:

	cygwin-info@cygnus.com
or	info@cygnus.com

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

Re: Cygwin license

[Thomas.Wolff]

: > ...
: If your software is proprietary and built with cygwin, you must either
: make your software non-proprietary (GPL or Open Source), or purchase a
: proprietary-use license from Cygnus, ...
I had sent an enquiry about commercial licenses to pre-sales@cygnus.com 
(an address found on your web site) but got no response.

Thomas Wolff
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Thomas Wolff, Thomas.Wolff@bln1.siemens.de, +49-30-386-23419
Siemens IC mobile CA IN E (Intelligent Networks)
Siemensdamm 50, D-13629 Berlin, Germany

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

Re: Cygwin license

[DJ Delorie]

> There has to be a way of legally allowing people to give binaries away
> while still charging the people selling commercial packages.

What's the difference?  Just cost?

Re: Cygwin license

[DJ Delorie]

> Doeas that mean that my fancy shell script that use some bash-only
> feature, and is as such totally unusable WITHOUT bash, must then be
> GPLed?... I think this is neither what the GPL says nor enforceable or
> useful...

The GPL has exceptions for things that normally come with the
operating system, like bash.  Plus, bash can be used without your
script, but the cygwin dll can't be used without a program that's
designed to use it.

> You are saying that Micro$oft would be able to earn money from Cygwin
> just by saying that any program that requires Windows to run must pay a
> royalties to Micro$oft as it falls under some fine-print in Micro$oft
> Windows license?... 

They would have to apply to all programs indiscriminately, and I think
the Justice Dept would frown upon it ;-)

However, there's a difference between an established OS changing its
terms to its advantage late in the game, and a small toolkit whose
terms have been the same since its first release.

> If a program do NOT include crt0.o nor libcygwin.a, then I do not
> see why it would fall under the GPL more than any program that
> references kernel32.dll would have any possible restriction from
> Micro$oft.

The definition of "program" in the GPL isn't limited to a single file.
If your "program" consists of two files, which won't work separate
from each other, then the "program" consists of both files, and terms
of each must be applied to both.

As for the Microsoft analogy, they license Windows in such a way that
you can use it the way you describe.  They could have chosen other
terms, but their goal was to *sell* as many copies of Windows as
possible.  Our goals are different, thus our terms are different.

> If your program can operate without Windows, then you don't have to pay
> anything to Micro$oft, but if you *require* windows, then your customer
> has to obtain the right to use Windows;

We're not talking about the right to *use* cygwin.  The GPL doesn't
cover right to *use*.  It only covers redistribution.  You can write
whatever cywin programs you wish, and use them however you wish, but
if you want to give them to a friend you must give them the full
sources also.

The GPL also has an exception for "software that is normally part of
the OS".  The MS dlls would fall into this category because they
normally come with Windows.  The cygwin dll would not, as it does not
normally come with Windows.

> It seems that Micro$oft is here more friendly to the developer than
> Cygnus:

Microsoft doesn't give you the sources to Windows.  I find that very
unfriendly.

> you are aloowed to develop code that *require* Windows without
> having to pay anything to Micro$oft, and you can do what you want with
> your code.

But MS doesn't let you distribute copies of kernel32.dll with your
applications, either.

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

Re: Cygwin license

[Earnie Boyd]

---Steve Morris <smorris@nexen.com> wrote:
--8<--
> I keep hammering on this issue because I believe that cygwin is much
> less valuable unless common tools, not part of the core set, are also
> available in binary form. It is unreasonable to expect every user of
> cygwin to collect all the sources for all useful utilities and build
> them.
--8<--

Thanks, Steve, for hammering.  This issue needs to be "put to the
test" and I don't think this thread needs to be dropped yet as there
hasn't been a resolution.  

Currently, as I see it, the only way to keep compliance with all open
source licenses is to provide instructions on where to find the tools,
where to find the source and provide instructions on what to change
and how to build them yourself with warnings not to distribute the
binaries.  Bartlee first stated this as a suggestion (at least most of
it), I reiterated it and no one has yet made any comments to
contridict it.

If you plan to supply binaries using the cygwin1.dll then you must:
1) provide a means to obtain the source for that version of the
cygwin1.dll
2) provide a means to obtain the source for the packages that the
cygwin1.dll is dependent upon.
3) provide a means to obtain the source for the packages that you are
providing binaries for and ensure that those packages meet the
requirements for the GPL.

Does anyone disagree with this?

==
-                        \\||//
-------------------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: Cygwin license

[Earnie Boyd]

---DJ Delorie <dj@delorie.com> wrote:
>
> 
> > 1) provide a means to obtain the source for that version of the
> > cygwin1.dll
> > 2) provide a means to obtain the source for the packages that the
> > cygwin1.dll is dependent upon.
> 
> If you do 1, what's left for 2?

As I understand it, the sources for cygwin1.dll are in the winsup
package; however, to build these I also need the newlib package and
maybe others.  But I can see how this needed clarified.
==
-                        \\||//
-------------------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: Cygwin license

[Steve Morris]

DJ Delorie writes:
 > Linux does not live on top of the HURD.

On the Alpha? I had heard that it did. I don't mean the Intel Linux
port.

 > > So if I develop code from scratch in cygwin, compile it in cygwin and
 > > want to distribute the binaries, free, to users of the sourceware
 > > version of Cygwin, Cygnus says no. Cygnus is suggesting that I don't
 > > have the right to give away non GPL binary code to the users of the
 > > cygwin development environment without giving them money for the
 > > privilege. All because I need to compile in the "glue" required to
 > > interoperate with other programs in the cygwin.dll platform.
 > 
 > We don't consider cygwin to be "glue".  There is a substantial amount
 > of work and new functionality in cygwin.  Calling it "glue" is
 > insulting to the people who created it.  

Please stop puting words in my mouth. I am trying to stick to
facts. No insult is intended. I do not refer to cygwin as glue and
never have. It is obviously an impressive and high quality
accomplishment. I am extremely glad for its existance. 

However it is my understanding that most of cygwin lives in the
dll. The interface to this dll, i.e. the headers and the dll interface
library is what I am referring to as glue. glue to connect the
executable to the cygwin environment. I am not suggesting that the
entire cygwin package is merely glue to win32. Those are your words,
not mine.

I am suggesting that the interface library and headers are legally
different from the dll itself and may have different legal
requirements concerning licensing. dlls are often distributed
seperately from the interface "glue" to the dll. Most of the dlls in
use are part of Windows. These are not considered part of the
executables that use them. This is a distinction that you are
ignoring.

I contend that cygwin comes in two parts. 1) The cygwin.dll and 2) a
thin interface layer to that dll. Obviously Cygnus has full rights to
control cygwin.dll. It is not so obvious that they have equivalent
rights to control the interface to that dll. Interface code that
provides no "value add" other than a connection to an underlying
package tends to trip on interoperability requirements. The underlying
package can be controlled but the interface usually can't. Wether it
is in this case is a matter of law, possibly untested law.

 > We wrote a piece of software
 > that *adds functionality* to Windows.  If you want to use that
 > functionality, you must abide by our terms.

Only if those terms are legally enforcable. That is the subject under
discussion. Licenses only make sense in a legal context. Just like a
manufacturer cannot disclaim all warrenty for their products, Cygnus
cannot arbitrarily restrict use of their code. Whether this particular
restriction on the interface to the dll is legally valid is the topic
under discussion. It may be. Cygnus clearly believes it to be so. That
doesn't prove it.

 > You're grasping at straws.  The fact that the user has N cygwin
 > programs on their machine already doesn't change the fact that your
 > program uses cygwin and *includes* code from cygwin - code that does
 > more than just "glue" you to the OS (win32).

I am not grasping at straws. Please bring this conversation back to
the level of discussing facts and relevent opinions. I am eithor right
or wrong. In neithor case should you insult me. Counter my arguement
if you think I am wrong but please leave out the personal attacks. I
am merely stating my honestly held understanding.

In some sense I am a disinterested outsider since I have no plans to
or interest in providing non sourceware packages that run under
Cygwin. (I speak as if I did but that is merely a hypothetical.)
However I do not GPL my code. I provide an unlimited source license to
it with the usual disclaimers.

I merely happen to be an outsider who has some level of understanding
of the law. It is interpretation of the law that we are discussing.
Your persistance in misinterpreting my position has strengthened my
desire to make that position more clear, otherwise I would have
dropped out of this conversation and left it to interested parties.

To the extent that I have any interest at all I would like to see
Cygnus make money out of cygwin. I would pay a moderate fee for its
personal use at home. I would recommend to employers that they license
cygwin from Cygnus. In the past I have even provailed on a similar
recomendation for the Cygnus gcc cross tools. However I also believe
that the interoperability issue applies to cygwin.

So in summary:

1) I am not suggesting that Cygnus cannot control distribution of the
dll.

2) I don't think that cygwin is a trivial glue layer. My opinion is
quite to the contrary.

3) I wish Cygnus well and hope they make as much money as the law
allows.

4) I believe that it is possible that the law would allow the
unlimited distribution of code linked only to the dll interface as
long as the dll itself was not part of the distribution. The end user
then has the obligation to follow the cygwin GPL requirements,
i.e. they must legally acquire its use.

5) I believe that challenging legal positions has as much use and
validity as testing the security of encription or access. The law must
be challenged to be useful. Cygnus needs to stand on a strong legal
basis or it will not stand at all. Similarly software security must be
tested to find weaknesses. In neithor case is ill will
involved. Offense is not intended and shouldn't be taken. You would
not be offended if I suggested that there was an authentication flaw
in cygwin software. You shouldn't be offended if I similarly suggest
that there is a flaw in cygwin licensing. Both are merely theories
which need testing and possible bug fixing.


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

Re: Cygwin license

[Gernot Heiser]

>>>>> "DD" == DJ Delorie <dj@delorie.com> writes:

>> However, we can, of course, not relax Stanford's restrictions on
>> commercial use without their agreement (which seems unlikely). Hence we
>> fear that we might be technically in breach of your license if we link
>> SimOS against your library, even though we feel that we would be
>> adhering to the spirit of it.

DD> You could get a commercial license for cygwin, which would allow you
DD> to choose a more restrictive license for SimOS, but then not allow the
DD> resulting program to be used commercially.

Yes, but $8k for a license just to produce code we give away freely to
students, and while following the spirit (if not the letter) of the
license seems a bit overdone.

DD> Have you considered djgpp, which has exceptions in its runtime license
DD> to allow for proprietary programs under some circumstances?

Looked at it, but most likely it won't support a smooth port.

Gernot
--
Gernot Heiser                ,--_|\   School of Computer Sci. & Engin.
Phone:  +61 2 9385 5156     /      \  The University of NSW
Fax:    +61 2 9385 5995     \_,--._*  Sydney, Australia 2052
E-mail: G.Heiser@unsw.edu.au      v   http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~gernot
PGP	fingerprint: 94 1E B8 28 25 FD 7C 94  20 10 92 E5 0B FF 39 8F

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

Re: Cygwin license

[DJ Delorie]

> 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.

Nothing about gcc is LGPL.  Only glibc is LGPL, and the only reason
*that* is LGPL is because it provides no value beyond what any other C
runtime provides, so there is no incentive to choose it over another.

> 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.

This has nothing to do with GPL vs LGPL.  The GPL just doesn't cover
the results of *using* a GPL'd program, only using the program's
sources.  This has always been the case.

> These people wouldn't be part of the free software movement without
> LGPL.

But they were part of the movement before there was an LGPL, and the LGPL
doesn't apply to gcc anyway.

> 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.

RMS doesn't care about how broad the distribution is.  He only cares
that the software he writes and uses is free to be used by everyone.
I tend to agree - I have no philanthropic interest in convering the
world to my views as long as *I* have the programs *I* need.

> As has been stated earlier on this list it is not clear that Cygnus
> can restrict the distribution of code that runs under Cygwin.

Since any cygwin application includes a significant portion of the
runtime within it, and it's a runtime that does not simply interface
you to the Win32 API (which is the platform you're running on),
there's a clear value added that's part of the source upon which your
binary was built (not including the dll).  It is primarily this code
that makes your application GPL.

> Courts have held in other cases that glue software required for
> inter-operability can be used regardless of license conflicts.

The cygwin startup code is not just glue, and there's nothing else for
us to be inter-operable with.  Do you know of any other companies
making a cygwin dll?  If the code were simply a way of hooking you do
the Win32 API, I might agree, but we're providing a significant amount
of extra functionality on top of the Win32 API.  The fact that said
functionality emulates a POSIX environment is irrelevent; Win32 is not
a posix environment so our code isn't there to make you interoperable
with the OS.

> If you consider sourceware cygwin.dll to be a general platform for
> running UNIX code

We do not.  It is a tool that helps you port unix code to windows.
The result is not a unix program any more, but a windows program.

> If it is effectively impossible (i.e. prohibitively expensive) to
> distribute code without including Cygnus licensed glue I suspect
> that the license is unenforcable.

Just because cygwin makes a hard job easy doesn't mean we're legally
obliged to guarantee we'll make it easy for everyone.  We have chosen
a particular set of terms which you may agree to or not.  If you don't
agree to them, you simply have to find another way.  The video game
analogy is inappropriate - it *is* impossible to run game X on system
Y without interfacing to system Y's APIs.  It *is* possible to write
program A to run on Win32 without interfacing with Cygwin's APIs.

> 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.

Nope.  It has always had the GPL's restrictions on it; you are free to
not use cygwin if you don't agree with the terms and you will still be
able to write Win32 applications (just not with Cygwin).

> (NOTE: It would probably depend largely on the license fee
> arrangement. The game manufacturers wanted steep per cartridge
> royalties.)

Irrelevent in our case, since cygwin isn't a mandatory component of
writing a Win32 program.

> 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?

Well, the original reason was because *we* needed it to port GNUPro to
NT.

> 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.

I think your argument is invalid because cygwin isn't a *mandatory*
part of developing Win32 programs.  It's a tool that makes it easier
to do certain things, but people have been writing Win32 programs long
before cygwin came along.  Now, if *Microsoft* tried to license the
import libraries for Win32, *then* I think there would be a legal
issue.

> In other words my legal hat is having a major arguement with my
> sourceware hat. Am I showing signs of split personality? ;-)

Yes.  No.  ;-)

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

Re: Cygwin license

[DJ Delorie]

> However, we can, of course, not relax Stanford's restrictions on
> commercial use without their agreement (which seems unlikely). Hence we
> fear that we might be technically in breach of your license if we link
> SimOS against your library, even though we feel that we would be
> adhering to the spirit of it.

You could get a commercial license for cygwin, which would allow you
to choose a more restrictive license for SimOS, but then not allow the
resulting program to be used commercially.

Have you considered djgpp, which has exceptions in its runtime license
to allow for proprietary programs under some circumstances?

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

Re: Cygwin license

[Chris Faylor]

On Tue, Mar 16, 1999 at 05:01:32AM -0800, Earnie Boyd wrote:
>---Gernot Heiser <gernot@zuse.disy.cse.unsw.EDU.AU> wrote:
>> >>>>> "DD" == DJ Delorie <dj@delorie.com> writes:
>> 
>> >> However, we can, of course, not relax Stanford's restrictions on
>> >> commercial use without their agreement (which seems unlikely).
>Hence we
>> >> fear that we might be technically in breach of your license if we
>link
>> >> SimOS against your library, even though we feel that we would be
>> >> adhering to the spirit of it.
>> 
>> DD> You could get a commercial license for cygwin, which would allow
>you
>> DD> to choose a more restrictive license for SimOS, but then not
>allow the
>> DD> resulting program to be used commercially.
>> 
>> Yes, but $8k for a license just to produce code we give away freely to
>> students, and while following the spirit (if not the letter) of the
>> license seems a bit overdone.
>
>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.

>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.

We do consider changing the licensing from time to time but, so far, no
one has been able to convince the powers that be at Cygnus that making
cygwin into a LGPLed program would be worthwhile.  It would certainly
remove some of the incentive for buying the commercial product but,
perhaps more importantly, it would allow people to produce proprietary
applications based on the cygwin DLL.  That does not sound like a good
plan to me.

>Gernot Heiser's predicament is a good example of what is wrong with
>the way that the cygwin product is licensed.  Cygnus, I as an Open
>Source supporter speaking to an Open Source supporter, plead and beg
>with you to give Gernot Heiser the privilege of using cygwin with his
>package without paying anything to do so.  Open Source is and should
>always be free.  (Yes, I know you need to pay the bills, but this one
>isn't the same as someone making money from commercial software).

I don't think that this is a particularly good example of anything,
personally.  This is a very unique situation.

FWIW, I have forwarded this request to our marketing department when it
first appeared.  I asked them to provide a complimentary license to this
university.  We have no policy for this type of thing so it is being
mulled over now.

If Mr.  Heiser wants to pursue this directly he can send a request to
info@cygnus.com, detailing his requirements and mentioning that this has
come up in the cygwin mailing list (just to avoid a loop) and that Chris
Faylor suggested sending email there.

cgf

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

Re: Cygwin license

[Steve Morris]

DJ Delorie writes:
 > 
 > > There has to be a way of legally allowing people to give binaries away
 > > while still charging the people selling commercial packages.
 > 
 > What's the difference?  Just cost?

Specifically it should be possible for people to legally provide a
service of compiling to binaries software that people already have a
legal right to use. It is silly that Andy Piper, Earnie, Sergey et al
are in technical violation of cygwin licensing terms when they are
merely saving the rest of us time and effort.

 > >From a license point of view, we can certainly add whatever extra
 > exceptions we want, or even write a whole new one.  However, at the
 > moment, the license is GPL, so that's what we all have to abide by.

We agree on everything except the interpretation of the GPL under the
laws of the US. However that is a separate issue which I personally
would be happy to drop having no vested interest in the
conversation. I only insist on not being misinterpreted. I don't care
if anyone agrees. That's what makes a horse race interesting.




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

Cygwin license

[gernot]

Hi,

I'm a professor at the University of New South Wales (UNSW) in Sydney,
Australia and am teaching a course on operating systems.

For our assignments we use a teaching operating system called Topsy from
ETH Zurich, which runs on the MIPS architecture. We use the SimOS system
from Stanford to run Topsy on our various Unix platforms.

As many of our students own wintel systems we would like to make
SimOS/Topsy available for them to use when working at home on
assignments. We are confident that we can port SimOS to wintel, provided
we can link against the Cygwin API library.

This is where we have a licensing problem. Your license requires all
code to be linked against your library to be GPLed. According to
http://sourceware.cygnus.com/cygwin/licensing.html:

               The Cygwin API library found in the winsup subdirectory
               of the source code is also covered by the GNU GPL. By
               default, all executables link against this library (and
               in the process include GPL'd Cygwin glue code). This
               means that unless you modify the tools so that compiled
               executables do not make use of the Cygwin library, your
               compiled programs will also have to be free software
               distributed under the GPL with source code available to
               all.

The SimOS source is available under a license from Stanford University
(attached below). It differs from the GPL in that:

 - it does not require making code available in source form,

 - it does not allow commercial use.

We would be happy to be bound by the GPL requirement of making
everything we distribute as binaries available in source form. In fact,
we always planned to release our ports in source on the web.

However, we can, of course, not relax Stanford's restrictions on
commercial use without their agreement (which seems unlikely). Hence we
fear that we might be technically in breach of your license if we link
SimOS against your library, even though we feel that we would be
adhering to the spirit of it.

We would appreciate if you could clarify this licensing issue for us,
and hope that we will be able to use the Cygwin API library as outlined
above.

Yours sincerely,
Gernot Heiser

------------------------------------------------------------------------

License Agreement from Stanford University
------------------------------------------

1.  Hereafter, "SimOS" refers to the SimOS machine simulation
environment and all associated source and documentation materials.

This is a legal agreement between you, RECIPIENT, and STANFORD
UNIVERSITY.  By accepting, receiving and using SimOS, you are agreeing
to be bound by the terms of this Agreement.  If you do not agree to
the terms of this Agreement, promptly return SimOS to STANFORD.

2.  STANFORD grants to RECIPIENT a royalty-free, nonexclusive,
nontransferable, and non-commerical license to use SimOS furnished
hereunder, upon the terms and conditions set out below.

3.  RECIPIENT acknowledges that SimOS is a research tool still in the
development stage and that they are being supplied "as is," without
any accompanying services or improvements from STANFORD.

4.  STANFORD MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED.  By
way of example, but not limitation, STANFORD MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR THAT
THE USE OF THE LICENSED SOFTWARE COMPONENTS OR DOCUMENTATION WILL NOT
INFRINGE ANY PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS, TRADEMARKS OR OTHER RIGHTS.  STANFORD
shall not be held liable for any liability nor for any direct, indirect or
consequential damages with respect to any claim by RECIPIENT or any third
party on account of or arising from this Agreement or use of SimOS.
--
Gernot Heiser                ,--_|\   School of Computer Sci. & Engin.
Phone:  +61 2 9385 5156     /      \  The University of NSW
Fax:    +61 2 9385 5995     \_,--._*  Sydney, Australia 2052
E-mail: G.Heiser@unsw.edu.au      v   http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~gernot
PGP	fingerprint: 94 1E B8 28 25 FD 7C 94  20 10 92 E5 0B FF 39 8F

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

Re: Cygwin license

[Steve Morris]

Fergus Henderson writes:
 > On 16-Mar-1999, DJ Delorie <dj@delorie.com> wrote:
 > > 
 > > [no attribution, but I think it was smorris@nexen.com:]
 > > > 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.
 > > 
 > > Nothing about gcc is LGPL.
 > 
 > Yes, smorris@nexen.com misspoke slightly, gcc is not LGPL.  But libgcc.a
 > is "GPL + special exceptions", the consequences of which are broadly
 > similar to LGPL, and I strongly suspect that without those special
 > exceptions, the same conclusion would hold.

Yes libgcc.a was what I ment. It is my recollection that LGPL was
originally invented for this library but I'll take your word for it. I
was there when these things were originally being discussed but my
memory is terrible.

If this is true I think we should stop talking about LGPL and talk
about a special exception only for the glue that allows a program to
run in the cygwin.dll environment. How about a special exception only
for people that want to provide cygwin interoperable binaries merely
as a service without the GPL burden of that glue. Make it a free
software exception for people not selling software. That would cover
Sergeys coolview and inetd, and the wide variety of binaries provided
by other helpful people, Andy Piper etc.. Cygnus is clearly looking
the other way on these already which means they agree with the spirit
of the suggestion. Cygnus is obviously well aware of these binary
distributions since their existance is discussed on this list.

There has to be a way of legally allowing people to give binaries away
while still charging the people selling commercial packages.


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

Re: Cygwin license

[DJ Delorie]

> Specifically it should be possible for people to legally provide a
> service of compiling to binaries software that people already have a
> legal right to use. It is silly that Andy Piper, Earnie, Sergey et al
> are in technical violation of cygwin licensing terms when they are
> merely saving the rest of us time and effort.

The GPL was designed - by *lawyers* - to prevent people from
distributing a binary without sources.  A "legal right to use" is
irrelevent in this case, as the GPL's scope simply doesn't cover
*using* software (section 0, para 2).  The GPL requires that the
distribution of a binary imply availability of *those* sources
guaranteed by the distributer of the binary, regardless of whether or
not the recipient has a right to use.  The GPL also clearly states
that if for any reason you are unable to meet all the requirements of
the GPL, then the only way to satisfy the GPL is to not distribute the
software (binary or source) at all (section 7 para 1).

As far as Andy et al providing a "service" to others, yes I agree that
it's a good service.  However, they must *legally* put the sources
they used out there with the binaries.  The GPL requires it.  Patches
are not acceptable.  Relying on a third party's ftp site is not
acceptable.  If Andy puts out a binary for emacs, and the FSF stops
distributing emacs sources, Andy has broken the law.  Considering how
trivial it is to zip up the sources too, is it really a problem?

Note that this is different from the case where person A gives sources
to person B for person B to compile on behalf of person A.  In this
case, as long as B doesn't change the sources, the GPL is already met
because when B gives A the binary, B knows that A has the sources for
that binary.  B pedants could just give the sources back to A anyway,
but it wouldn't make a difference for A if they already have a copy.

PS: I'm not saying Andy *is* breaking the law.  I don't know.  Maybe
he does the right thing, maybe not.  It's just an example.  OK?

> We agree on everything except the interpretation of the GPL under
> the laws of the US.

Perhaps, but the GPL has been reviewed by many lawyers, and I feel
that it's a pretty solid legal document.  My "interpretation" of the
GPL is based on many lengthy conversations with RMS over the last 11
years, since none of these issues is new.

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

Re: Cygwin license

[Fergus Henderson]

On 16-Mar-1999, DJ Delorie <dj@delorie.com> wrote:
> 
> [no attribution, but I think it was smorris@nexen.com:]
> > 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.
> 
> Nothing about gcc is LGPL.

Yes, smorris@nexen.com misspoke slightly, gcc is not LGPL.  But libgcc.a
is "GPL + special exceptions", the consequences of which are broadly
similar to LGPL, and I strongly suspect that without those special
exceptions, the same conclusion would hold.

> > 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.
> 
> But they were part of the movement before there was an LGPL, and the LGPL
> doesn't apply to gcc anyway.

Again, smorris@nexen.com misspoke slightly -- he should have said 
with the special exception" rather than "without LGPL".

> > 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.
> 
> The cygwin startup code is not just glue, and there's nothing else for
> us to be inter-operable with.

This issue might be inter-operability of e.g. my program written using
cygwin.dll with someone else's program also written using cygwin.dll.

> Do you know of any other companies
> making a cygwin dll?  If the code were simply a way of hooking you do
> the Win32 API, I might agree, but we're providing a significant amount
> of extra functionality on top of the Win32 API.  The fact that said
> functionality emulates a POSIX environment is irrelevent; Win32 is not
> a posix environment so our code isn't there to make you interoperable
> with the OS.

The point is that your code *is* the OS, or at least part of it, from
the perspective of POSIX programs.  From that perspective, smorris's
arguments might hold.  Whether the courts would look at
it from that perspective is of course an open question...

> > If you consider sourceware cygwin.dll to be a general platform for
> > running UNIX code
> 
> We do not.

But would the courts?

-- 
Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au>  |  "I have always known that the pursuit
WWW: < http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh >  |  of excellence is a lethal habit"
PGP: finger fjh@128.250.37.3        |     -- the last words of T. S. Garp.

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

Re: Cygwin license

[DJ Delorie]

OK, massive legal arguments (from both sides) aside, it is Cygnus's
intent that any programs that are linked with libcygwin.a must be
distributed under the terms of the GPL.

RMS's opinion on DLLs (and shared libraries in Unix) is that the mere
fact that they exist in a separate file does not in itself make them a
separate program in the eyes of the GPL (which has itself been subject
to lengthy legal review).  Since the two (your exe and cygwin's dll)
are inseparable for the purpose of running your program, they are
legally (according to the GPL) considered *one* program.  This means
that the GPL on the dll *does* apply to programs that require it.

If your program can operate *without* a cygwin dll available, then I
would probably agree that the libcygwin.a code *may* fall into that
"interoperability" regime (although, at the moment, any program that
uses libcygwin.a usually does so in such a way that it will not
operate without cygwin1.dll) if they avoid anything in libccrt0,
libcmain, getopt, dll_entry, or dll_main, which aren't in the dll at
all (the remainder of the objects are dll thunks, which can easily be
regenerated from cygwin1.dll itself with microsoft tools).

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

RE: Cygwin license

[Kevin.Hughes]

If this debate is coming to a close, could the valuable results be placed on
the cygwin home page? If this was possible it may stop a duplicate thread
starting in 6 months time - and there will be a reference point for all.


Just a thought

Kevin

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

Re: Cygwin license

[Bartlee Anderson]

If we get back to what all started this, I think that if you make
instructions on where
to get cygwin and set it up. And instructions for getting and compiling
whatever source you can't release under GPL to those who need to run them.
Then you
have given the end result desired (giving your executable by allowing it to
be created)
without having to distribute and therefore falling under the GPL. Simply
enjoin the
redistribution of created code. You can make it a directive to those to whom
you
give the software, and explain that if they wish to redistribute, they can
get an
$8000 license from Cygnus. That should make it clear that they don't want to
do that.

Now, can we do some development!?
Please?

DJ Delorie wrote:

> > Doeas that mean that my fancy shell script that use some bash-only
> > feature, and is as such totally unusable WITHOUT bash, must then be
> > GPLed?... I think this is neither what the GPL says nor enforceable or
> > useful...
>
> The GPL has exceptions for things that normally come with the
> operating system, like bash.  Plus, bash can be used without your
> script, but the cygwin dll can't be used without a program that's
> designed to use it.
>
> > You are saying that Micro$oft would be able to earn money from Cygwin
> > just by saying that any program that requires Windows to run must pay a
> > royalties to Micro$oft as it falls under some fine-print in Micro$oft
> > Windows license?...
>
> They would have to apply to all programs indiscriminately, and I think
> the Justice Dept would frown upon it ;-)
>
> However, there's a difference between an established OS changing its
> terms to its advantage late in the game, and a small toolkit whose
> terms have been the same since its first release.
>
> > If a program do NOT include crt0.o nor libcygwin.a, then I do not
> > see why it would fall under the GPL more than any program that
> > references kernel32.dll would have any possible restriction from
> > Micro$oft.
>
> The definition of "program" in the GPL isn't limited to a single file.
> If your "program" consists of two files, which won't work separate
> from each other, then the "program" consists of both files, and terms
> of each must be applied to both.
>
> As for the Microsoft analogy, they license Windows in such a way that
> you can use it the way you describe.  They could have chosen other
> terms, but their goal was to *sell* as many copies of Windows as
> possible.  Our goals are different, thus our terms are different.
>
> > If your program can operate without Windows, then you don't have to pay
> > anything to Micro$oft, but if you *require* windows, then your customer
> > has to obtain the right to use Windows;
>
> We're not talking about the right to *use* cygwin.  The GPL doesn't
> cover right to *use*.  It only covers redistribution.  You can write
> whatever cywin programs you wish, and use them however you wish, but
> if you want to give them to a friend you must give them the full
> sources also.
>
> The GPL also has an exception for "software that is normally part of
> the OS".  The MS dlls would fall into this category because they
> normally come with Windows.  The cygwin dll would not, as it does not
> normally come with Windows.
>
> > It seems that Micro$oft is here more friendly to the developer than
> > Cygnus:
>
> Microsoft doesn't give you the sources to Windows.  I find that very
> unfriendly.
>
> > you are aloowed to develop code that *require* Windows without
> > having to pay anything to Micro$oft, and you can do what you want with
> > your code.
>
> But MS doesn't let you distribute copies of kernel32.dll with your
> applications, either.
>
> --
> Want to unsubscribe from this list?
> Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Bartlee A. Anderson           Opinions my own,         3CS Development
Rockwell International           not Rockwell's    Electronic Commerce
300 Bauman Ct.  MS 933-607                         Wood Dale, IL 60191
banders@ec.rockwell.com   FAX (630) 227-8040      VOICE (630) 227-8975


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

Re: Cygwin license

[Steve Morris]

I know I promised to drop out of this thread but I couldn't resist
one last note.

DJ Delorie quotes:
 > > It seems that Micro$oft is here more friendly to the developer than
 > > Cygnus:

Microsoft does not give you the software. GPLed cygwin is a free
sourceware product. Cygnus owns cygwin because they developed it. The
only rights you have to it are the ones that they give you plus the
ones allowed by law (fair use etc.) By releasing it under GPL they
have been quite generous. By bundling it with a lot of other GLPed
software they have been quite helpful. I am a little surprised about
the carping that continues.

How can you possibly compare a free product available in source with
the MS piece of junk that you have to pay too much for.

I have been involved here in arguements about what exactly the GPL
means and how it applies to cygwin and how enforcable its restrictions
might be. I regret my contribution because it muddled the main
point. 

You have been given a gift. If you don't like the terms of the gift
don't accept it. Where is the arguement?  You think Cygnus should be
even more generous? Maybe they should pay you to use it? Maybe their
employees should work for you for free; I mean even more than some of
them do already. :->

I suggest that if you don't like the Cygwin distribution requirements
you buy a product you like better.

There is a tendancy to pick on the nice guys because they care and
listen. Cygnus is the nice guy in this discussion. Let's ease up on
them. Go beat up Bill Gates if you have aggression to work out. See if
he listens.

- My $.12. Now I am really out of this thread.

Steve Morris
sjm@judgement.com


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

Re: Cygwin license

[Earnie Boyd]

---Gernot Heiser <gernot@zuse.disy.cse.unsw.EDU.AU> wrote:
>
> >>>>> "DD" == DJ Delorie <dj@delorie.com> writes:
> 
> >> However, we can, of course, not relax Stanford's restrictions on
> >> commercial use without their agreement (which seems unlikely).
Hence we
> >> fear that we might be technically in breach of your license if we
link
> >> SimOS against your library, even though we feel that we would be
> >> adhering to the spirit of it.
> 
> DD> You could get a commercial license for cygwin, which would allow
you
> DD> to choose a more restrictive license for SimOS, but then not
allow the
> DD> resulting program to be used commercially.
> 
> Yes, but $8k for a license just to produce code we give away freely to
> students, and while following the spirit (if not the letter) of the
> license seems a bit overdone.

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.

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.

Gernot Heiser's predicament is a good example of what is wrong with
the way that the cygwin product is licensed.  Cygnus, I as an Open
Source supporter speaking to an Open Source supporter, plead and beg
with you to give Gernot Heiser the privilege of using cygwin with his
package without paying anything to do so.  Open Source is and should
always be free.  (Yes, I know you need to pay the bills, but this one
isn't the same as someone making money from commercial software).

==
-                        \\||//
-------------------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: Cygwin license

[Steve Morris]

DJ Delorie writes:
 > 
 > > Specifically it should be possible for people to legally provide a
 > > service of compiling to binaries software that people already have a
 > > legal right to use. It is silly that Andy Piper, Earnie, Sergey et al
 > > are in technical violation of cygwin licensing terms when they are
 > > merely saving the rest of us time and effort.
 > 
 > The GPL was designed - by *lawyers* - to prevent people from
 > distributing a binary without sources.
 >
 > As far as Andy et al providing a "service" to others, yes I agree that
 > it's a good service.  However, they must *legally* put the sources
 > they used out there with the binaries.  The GPL requires it.  Patches
 > are not acceptable.  Relying on a third party's ftp site is not
 > acceptable.  If Andy puts out a binary for emacs, and the FSF stops
 > distributing emacs sources, Andy has broken the law.  Considering how
 > trivial it is to zip up the sources too, is it really a problem?

I am trying to limit the discussion to cygwin sources. The issue of
providing inetd, man, less etc sources with the binaries can be
discussed elsewhere where those packages are apropriately discussed.
For the sake of this discussion please assume these requirements have
been met.

The critical question relevent qto members of this list is whether
people who provide the service of compiling generally available third
party sources into cygwin executables must also provide the full
cygwin source distribution for 3 years and do so for each cygwin
version they distribute against.

If the full distribution is not required is it enough to provide a
distribution of sources for ligcugwin.a and the headers since that is
all that are compiled against and linked in? Or possibly theose plus
the sources for the dll. If so it would be useful if someone
(hopefully at Cygnus as the interested party) could package this
required subset into a single tar ball as an aid to people trying to
provide this extremely useful compiling service. At least Cygnus needs
to spell out exactly which files need to be to provided in
source. This is a legal requirement if Cygwin expects the license to
be enforcable.  I'm sure that Cygnus doesn't suggest that sources for
gcc and bash and other utilities needs to be provided in
source. Exactly where is the cut.

Cygnus should eithor make it simple for these service providers to
meet the cygwin GPL source requirements with their binaries or take on
the additional burden of providing binaries themselves. The first is
obviously the most desireable.

I keep hammering on this issue because I believe that cygwin is much
less valuable unless common tools, not part of the core set, are also
available in binary form. It is unreasonable to expect every user of
cygwin to collect all the sources for all useful utilities and build
them.


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

Re: Cygwin license

[Earnie Boyd]

---Steve Morris <smorris@nexen.com> wrote:
--8<--
> There has to be a way of legally allowing people to give binaries away
> while still charging the people selling commercial packages.
--8<--

This is what I was striving toward.  Currently, the only way I see to
work around this is to do as Bartlee Anderson suggested.  Distribute
the cygwin package or suggest how to obtain it, distribute your source
code, provide a script for building your source with the cygwin
package to create a working binary.  Instructions on not distributing
the binary would have to be given as that would infringe upon the
copyrights of the individual packages.

Now, does anyone see any infringements with this scenario?

==
-                        \\||//
-------------------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: Cygwin license

[Chris Faylor]

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

FYI, gcc is not LGPLed.   Gcc is GPLed.

cgf

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

Re: Cygwin license

[DJ Delorie]

> 1) provide a means to obtain the source for that version of the
> cygwin1.dll
> 2) provide a means to obtain the source for the packages that the
> cygwin1.dll is dependent upon.

If you do 1, what's left for 2?

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

Re: Cygwin license

[Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)]

I agree with Steve.

I've debated for quite a while whether it makes sense to say anything in 
this thread.  So far, I've only attempted to contribute to it with specific
responses to particular contributors.  At this time, I think I can contribute
something to the thread in general however:

 - The discussion has been about what is actually required to be able to 
   distribute something on top of Cygwin.

 - The focus has generally been on the difference between the two licensing
   schemes with which Cygnus provides Cygwin, with a focus of the discussion 
   on what it means to distribute something under the GPL.

 - Both Chris and DJ have quite directly and pretty completely answered the
   wide variety of questions in this regard, with DJ providing a wealth of
   insight into the GPL (for those of us who haven't taken the time to try
   to read it and think about it - me included!;-))

 - Releasing GPL software on top of Cygwin seems to mean that one needs to 
   provide the sources for both the software and Cygwin along with the 
   binaries.  It seems quite clear that the addition of about 4MBs of 
   Cygwin source is all that is necessary and, subjectively, doesn't seem
   like much of a burden.

 - Much of the rest of the conversation about this subject has amounted to 
   people complaining about the "commercial" license form that Cygnus sells,
   either in principle or in cost, or general comments on whether GPL makes
   sense in a particular individual's view.

I think its fair to say that the question of what it means to release a 
program built on top of Cygwin has been answered completely.  If you want
to keep your source (and Cygwin's) and sell your program, buy a commercial 
license.  If you are willing to distribute your binaries/source (and 
Cygwin's), just use the GPL.  If you don't like either of these options,
talk to Cygnus directly and see if you can work something out or go 
someplace else to find the support you need.  

Since the original point of the thread was to try to clarify what it meant
to distribute something on top of Cygwin and this issue has been resolved,
perhaps its best now not to let this thread degenerate more into a 
discussion of the merits of the GPL and/or Cygnus bashing.  I'm sure if 
you have comments for Cygnus in this regard, you can contact them directly
with your concerns.

That's it.  I'm out.  If this adds more off-topic discussion to the thread, 
I'm sorry!

Larry Hall                             lhall@rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc.                     (781) 239-1053
8 Grove Street                         (781) 239-1655
Wellesley, MA, 02482-7797              http://www.rfk.com


At 11:57 AM 3/19/99 -0500, Steve Morris wrote:
>
>I know I promised to drop out of this thread but I couldn't resist
>one last note.
>
>DJ Delorie quotes:
> > > It seems that Micro$oft is here more friendly to the developer than
> > > Cygnus:
>
>Microsoft does not give you the software. GPLed cygwin is a free
>sourceware product. Cygnus owns cygwin because they developed it. The
>only rights you have to it are the ones that they give you plus the
>ones allowed by law (fair use etc.) By releasing it under GPL they
>have been quite generous. By bundling it with a lot of other GLPed
>software they have been quite helpful. I am a little surprised about
>the carping that continues.
>
>How can you possibly compare a free product available in source with
>the MS piece of junk that you have to pay too much for.
>
>I have been involved here in arguements about what exactly the GPL
>means and how it applies to cygwin and how enforcable its restrictions
>might be. I regret my contribution because it muddled the main
>point. 
>
>You have been given a gift. If you don't like the terms of the gift
>don't accept it. Where is the arguement?  You think Cygnus should be
>even more generous? Maybe they should pay you to use it? Maybe their
>employees should work for you for free; I mean even more than some of
>them do already. :->
>
>I suggest that if you don't like the Cygwin distribution requirements
>you buy a product you like better.
>
>There is a tendancy to pick on the nice guys because they care and
>listen. Cygnus is the nice guy in this discussion. Let's ease up on
>them. Go beat up Bill Gates if you have aggression to work out. See if
>he listens.
>
>- My $.12. Now I am really out of this thread.
>
>Steve Morris
>sjm@judgement.com
>
>
>--
>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: Cygwin license

[Bernard Dautrevaux]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3844 bytes --]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DJ Delorie [ mailto:dj@delorie.com ]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 1999 1:45 AM
> To: smorris@nexen.com
> Cc: cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com
> Subject: Re: Cygwin license
> 
> 
> 
> OK, massive legal arguments (from both sides) aside, it is Cygnus's
> intent that any programs that are linked with libcygwin.a must be
> distributed under the terms of the GPL.
> 
> RMS's opinion on DLLs (and shared libraries in Unix) is that the mere
> fact that they exist in a separate file does not in itself make them a
> separate program in the eyes of the GPL (which has itself been subject
> to lengthy legal review).  Since the two (your exe and cygwin's dll)
> are inseparable for the purpose of running your program, they are
> legally (according to the GPL) considered *one* program.  

Doeas that mean that my fancy shell script that use some bash-only
feature, and is as such totally unusable WITHOUT bash, must then be
GPLed?... I think this is neither what the GPL says nor enforceable or
useful...

> This means
> that the GPL on the dll *does* apply to programs that require it.

You are saying that Micro$oft would be able to earn money from Cygwin
just by saying that any program that requires Windows to run must pay a
royalties to Micro$oft as it falls under some fine-print in Micro$oft
Windows license?... 

I think the only allowed restriction you could put on using a separate
piece of code, or any other code that requires it, is to have the right
to use it. So if someone has the right to use cygwin.dll on his machine,
he can use it and use with it any other piece of code.

If a program do NOT include crt0.o nor libcygwin.a, then I do not see
why it would fall under the GPL more than any program that references
kernel32.dll would have any possible restriction from Micro$oft. You
could say that I'm not allowed to distribute cygwin.dll with my product,
but that will be contrary to the GPL (as long as I distribute its source
code also).  

> 
> If your program can operate *without* a cygwin dll available, then I
> would probably agree that the libcygwin.a code *may* fall into that
> "interoperability" regime (although, at the moment, any program that
> uses libcygwin.a usually does so in such a way that it will not
> operate without cygwin1.dll) if they avoid anything in libccrt0,
> libcmain, getopt, dll_entry, or dll_main, which aren't in the dll at
> all (the remainder of the objects are dll thunks, which can easily be
> regenerated from cygwin1.dll itself with microsoft tools).
> 

If your program can operate without Windows, then you don't have to pay
anything to Micro$oft, but if you *require* windows, then your customer
has to obtain the right to use Windows; nobody can force hime to pay for
thi sright with each of th eprograms he want to use on Windows (and
don't say that the user do not pay twice for it: if I need a licence to
create Windows code using mingw32, I have to ask the custormer to pay
for it...)

It seems that Micro$oft is here more friendly to the developer than
Cygnus: you are aloowed to develop code that *require* Windows without
having to pay anything to Micro$oft, and you can do what you want with
your code. If you want to do the same with cygwin.dll (which arguably is
quite a bit smaller than WindowsNT) you need to pay this right to
Cygnus.

I do not think that would be acceptable if it has to be defended in
court...

Regards,

		Bernard

--------------------------------------------
Bernard Dautrevaux
Microprocess Ingéniérie
97 bis, rue de Colombes
92400 COURBEVOIE
FRANCE
Tel:	+33 (0) 1 47 68 80 80
Fax:	+33 (0) 1 47 88 97 85
e-mail:	dautrevaux@microprocess.com
		b.dautrevaux@usa.net
-------------------------------------------- 

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

Re: Cygwin license

[Steve Morris]

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

Re: Cygwin license

[Steve Morris]

Earnie Boyd writes:
 > ---Steve Morris <smorris@nexen.com> wrote:
 > --8<--
 > > I keep hammering on this issue because I believe that cygwin is much
 > > less valuable unless common tools, not part of the core set, are also
 > > available in binary form. It is unreasonable to expect every user of
 > > cygwin to collect all the sources for all useful utilities and build
 > > them.
 > --8<--
 > 
 > Thanks, Steve, for hammering.  This issue needs to be "put to the
 > test" and I don't think this thread needs to be dropped yet as there
 > hasn't been a resolution.  

Lets split the thread in half and drop one half. Here are the two
topics that get intermingled.

o - Distribution of binaries that do not have available source. This
would include commercial packages. Let's drop this sub-thread and
leave it to the lawyers of the respective parties.

o - Distribution of binaries for packages currently available in
source where someone wants to provide a valuable compiling
service. Let's figure out how to do this without:

1) Violating Cygnus license

2) Placing an undue burden on people intending to help people do what
they already have the right to do.

Currently people provide binaries, some possibly in violation of the
license, and Cygnus eithor doesn't know or doesn't persue them. I
prefer to believe that Cygnus quietly supports the efforts with
intentional benign neglect but I can't speak for Cygnus. However this
exposes those people to unfair risk. Let's define to everyone's
satisfaction how to do this right.

> If you plan to supply binaries using the cygwin1.dll then you must:
> 1) provide a means to obtain the source for that version of the
> cygwin1.dll
> 2) provide a means to obtain the source for the packages that the
> cygwin1.dll is dependent upon.
> 3) provide a means to obtain the source for the packages that you are
> providing binaries for and ensure that those packages meet the
> requirements for the GPL.
> 
> Does anyone disagree with this?

It is my understanding that there is no 2). cygwin stands
alone. Cygwin is currently packaged with many tools that depend on
cygwin.dll but not the other way around. I believe that cygwin in this
context (i.e. which sources need to be included in binary
distributions of third party software) consists of cygwin.dll,
libcygwin.a and the sources necessary to build these and link to
them. Someone at Cygnus should say wether they agree.

I think someone should make a Cygnus blessed tar ball of just those
files as a public service and then the Cygnus source requirement can
be met by proving the blessed tar ball. One person can solve the
problem and the binary distributors can share the results, everybody
is happy.

People have suggested that extracting just those files might not be
easy but remember GPL doesn't say the result has to be easy to build,
merely that they are complete.

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

Re: Cygwin license

[Chris Faylor]

On Tue, Mar 16, 1999 at 09:36:30AM -0600, Bartlee Anderson wrote:
>Couldn't you just make instructions for the students to compile and link
>and therefore not distribute your code linked with cygwin.
>I think this falls under fair use... but I'm not a lawyer, I just think it
>seems
>right, not that that ever means anything if you do have to talk to a lawyer!

If the binaries link to an executable that uses cygwin1.dll then Cygnus's
licensing requirements apply.

cgf

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

Re: Cygwin license

[Suhaib M. Siddiqi]

>Currently, as I see it, the only way to keep compliance with all open
>source licenses is to provide instructions on where to find the tools,
>where to find the source and provide instructions on what to change
>and how to build them yourself with warnings not to distribute the
>binaries.  Bartlee first stated this as a suggestion (at least most of
>it), I reiterated it and no one has yet made any comments to
>contridict it.
>
>If you plan to supply binaries using the cygwin1.dll then you must:
>1) provide a means to obtain the source for that version of the
>cygwin1.dll
>2) provide a means to obtain the source for the packages that the
>cygwin1.dll is dependent upon.
>3) provide a means to obtain the source for the packages that you are
>providing binaries for and ensure that those packages meet the
>requirements for the GPL.
>
>Does anyone disagree with this?
>

I agree!!!

Suhaib

PS: Ernie, I noticed a few of your messages sent to me from Yahoo.com bounced.  Sorry about it, we block all the emails originating from yahoo.com prontomail.com, lycos.com and other web based server because of a huge number of SPAM also originating from these sites.  If you reply my message make sure you change my address from ssiddiqi@inspirepharm.com to ssiddiqi@ipass.net.  Sorry about it.


>==
>-                        \\||//
>-------------------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
>
>



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

Re: Cygwin license

[Greg Miller]

Fergus Henderson wrote:
> > > Courts have held in other cases that glue software required for
> > > inter-operability can be used regardless of license conflicts.
> >
> > The cygwin startup code is not just glue, and there's nothing else for
> > us to be inter-operable with.
> 
> This issue might be inter-operability of e.g. my program written using
> cygwin.dll with someone else's program also written using cygwin.dll.

No, the issue would likely be interoperation between your program and
the DLL itself.

> The point is that your code *is* the OS, or at least part of it, from
> the perspective of POSIX programs.  From that perspective, smorris's
> arguments might hold.  Whether the courts would look at
> it from that perspective is of course an open question...

Actually, the only way I see that part being relevant is if cygwin were
to acquire such a large percentage of the UNIX API implementation market
(including both UNIX OSes and POSIX layers) that it became an antitrust
issue. It's more likely to come down to a matter of whether a judge
considers it feasible to use the cygwin DLL without the libcygwin
library. The import library and possibly the startup code are the only
things likely to be considered targets of the "fair use" clause.
-- 
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: Cygwin license

[Bartlee Anderson]

Couldn't you just make instructions for the students to compile and link
and therefore not distribute your code linked with cygwin.
I think this falls under fair use... but I'm not a lawyer, I just think it
seems
right, not that that ever means anything if you do have to talk to a lawyer!

Gernot Heiser wrote:

> >>>>> "DD" == DJ Delorie <dj@delorie.com> writes:
>
> >> However, we can, of course, not relax Stanford's restrictions on
> >> commercial use without their agreement (which seems unlikely). Hence we
> >> fear that we might be technically in breach of your license if we link
> >> SimOS against your library, even though we feel that we would be
> >> adhering to the spirit of it.
>
> DD> You could get a commercial license for cygwin, which would allow you
> DD> to choose a more restrictive license for SimOS, but then not allow the
> DD> resulting program to be used commercially.
>
> Yes, but $8k for a license just to produce code we give away freely to
> students, and while following the spirit (if not the letter) of the
> license seems a bit overdone.
>
> DD> Have you considered djgpp, which has exceptions in its runtime license
> DD> to allow for proprietary programs under some circumstances?
>
> Looked at it, but most likely it won't support a smooth port.
>
> Gernot
> --
> Gernot Heiser                ,--_|\   School of Computer Sci. & Engin.
> Phone:  +61 2 9385 5156     /      \  The University of NSW
> Fax:    +61 2 9385 5995     \_,--._*  Sydney, Australia 2052
> E-mail: G.Heiser@unsw.edu.au      v   http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~gernot
> PGP     fingerprint: 94 1E B8 28 25 FD 7C 94  20 10 92 E5 0B FF 39 8F
>
> --
> 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: Cygwin license

[Kevin.Hughes]

If this debate is coming to a close, could the valuable results be placed on
the cygwin home page? If this was possible it may stop a duplicate thread
starting in 6 months time - and there will be a reference point for all.


Just a thought

Kevin

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

Re: Cygwin license

[Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)]

I agree with Steve.

I've debated for quite a while whether it makes sense to say anything in 
this thread.  So far, I've only attempted to contribute to it with specific
responses to particular contributors.  At this time, I think I can contribute
something to the thread in general however:

 - The discussion has been about what is actually required to be able to 
   distribute something on top of Cygwin.

 - The focus has generally been on the difference between the two licensing
   schemes with which Cygnus provides Cygwin, with a focus of the discussion 
   on what it means to distribute something under the GPL.

 - Both Chris and DJ have quite directly and pretty completely answered the
   wide variety of questions in this regard, with DJ providing a wealth of
   insight into the GPL (for those of us who haven't taken the time to try
   to read it and think about it - me included!;-))

 - Releasing GPL software on top of Cygwin seems to mean that one needs to 
   provide the sources for both the software and Cygwin along with the 
   binaries.  It seems quite clear that the addition of about 4MBs of 
   Cygwin source is all that is necessary and, subjectively, doesn't seem
   like much of a burden.

 - Much of the rest of the conversation about this subject has amounted to 
   people complaining about the "commercial" license form that Cygnus sells,
   either in principle or in cost, or general comments on whether GPL makes
   sense in a particular individual's view.

I think its fair to say that the question of what it means to release a 
program built on top of Cygwin has been answered completely.  If you want
to keep your source (and Cygwin's) and sell your program, buy a commercial 
license.  If you are willing to distribute your binaries/source (and 
Cygwin's), just use the GPL.  If you don't like either of these options,
talk to Cygnus directly and see if you can work something out or go 
someplace else to find the support you need.  

Since the original point of the thread was to try to clarify what it meant
to distribute something on top of Cygwin and this issue has been resolved,
perhaps its best now not to let this thread degenerate more into a 
discussion of the merits of the GPL and/or Cygnus bashing.  I'm sure if 
you have comments for Cygnus in this regard, you can contact them directly
with your concerns.

That's it.  I'm out.  If this adds more off-topic discussion to the thread, 
I'm sorry!

Larry Hall                             lhall@rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc.                     (781) 239-1053
8 Grove Street                         (781) 239-1655
Wellesley, MA, 02482-7797              http://www.rfk.com


At 11:57 AM 3/19/99 -0500, Steve Morris wrote:
>
>I know I promised to drop out of this thread but I couldn't resist
>one last note.
>
>DJ Delorie quotes:
> > > It seems that Micro$oft is here more friendly to the developer than
> > > Cygnus:
>
>Microsoft does not give you the software. GPLed cygwin is a free
>sourceware product. Cygnus owns cygwin because they developed it. The
>only rights you have to it are the ones that they give you plus the
>ones allowed by law (fair use etc.) By releasing it under GPL they
>have been quite generous. By bundling it with a lot of other GLPed
>software they have been quite helpful. I am a little surprised about
>the carping that continues.
>
>How can you possibly compare a free product available in source with
>the MS piece of junk that you have to pay too much for.
>
>I have been involved here in arguements about what exactly the GPL
>means and how it applies to cygwin and how enforcable its restrictions
>might be. I regret my contribution because it muddled the main
>point. 
>
>You have been given a gift. If you don't like the terms of the gift
>don't accept it. Where is the arguement?  You think Cygnus should be
>even more generous? Maybe they should pay you to use it? Maybe their
>employees should work for you for free; I mean even more than some of
>them do already. :->
>
>I suggest that if you don't like the Cygwin distribution requirements
>you buy a product you like better.
>
>There is a tendancy to pick on the nice guys because they care and
>listen. Cygnus is the nice guy in this discussion. Let's ease up on
>them. Go beat up Bill Gates if you have aggression to work out. See if
>he listens.
>
>- My $.12. Now I am really out of this thread.
>
>Steve Morris
>sjm@judgement.com
>
>
>--
>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: Cygwin license

[Steve Morris]

I know I promised to drop out of this thread but I couldn't resist
one last note.

DJ Delorie quotes:
 > > It seems that Micro$oft is here more friendly to the developer than
 > > Cygnus:

Microsoft does not give you the software. GPLed cygwin is a free
sourceware product. Cygnus owns cygwin because they developed it. The
only rights you have to it are the ones that they give you plus the
ones allowed by law (fair use etc.) By releasing it under GPL they
have been quite generous. By bundling it with a lot of other GLPed
software they have been quite helpful. I am a little surprised about
the carping that continues.

How can you possibly compare a free product available in source with
the MS piece of junk that you have to pay too much for.

I have been involved here in arguements about what exactly the GPL
means and how it applies to cygwin and how enforcable its restrictions
might be. I regret my contribution because it muddled the main
point. 

You have been given a gift. If you don't like the terms of the gift
don't accept it. Where is the arguement?  You think Cygnus should be
even more generous? Maybe they should pay you to use it? Maybe their
employees should work for you for free; I mean even more than some of
them do already. :->

I suggest that if you don't like the Cygwin distribution requirements
you buy a product you like better.

There is a tendancy to pick on the nice guys because they care and
listen. Cygnus is the nice guy in this discussion. Let's ease up on
them. Go beat up Bill Gates if you have aggression to work out. See if
he listens.

- My $.12. Now I am really out of this thread.

Steve Morris
sjm@judgement.com


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

Re: Cygwin license

[Bartlee Anderson]

If we get back to what all started this, I think that if you make
instructions on where
to get cygwin and set it up. And instructions for getting and compiling
whatever source you can't release under GPL to those who need to run them.
Then you
have given the end result desired (giving your executable by allowing it to
be created)
without having to distribute and therefore falling under the GPL. Simply
enjoin the
redistribution of created code. You can make it a directive to those to whom
you
give the software, and explain that if they wish to redistribute, they can
get an
$8000 license from Cygnus. That should make it clear that they don't want to
do that.

Now, can we do some development!?
Please?

DJ Delorie wrote:

> > Doeas that mean that my fancy shell script that use some bash-only
> > feature, and is as such totally unusable WITHOUT bash, must then be
> > GPLed?... I think this is neither what the GPL says nor enforceable or
> > useful...
>
> The GPL has exceptions for things that normally come with the
> operating system, like bash.  Plus, bash can be used without your
> script, but the cygwin dll can't be used without a program that's
> designed to use it.
>
> > You are saying that Micro$oft would be able to earn money from Cygwin
> > just by saying that any program that requires Windows to run must pay a
> > royalties to Micro$oft as it falls under some fine-print in Micro$oft
> > Windows license?...
>
> They would have to apply to all programs indiscriminately, and I think
> the Justice Dept would frown upon it ;-)
>
> However, there's a difference between an established OS changing its
> terms to its advantage late in the game, and a small toolkit whose
> terms have been the same since its first release.
>
> > If a program do NOT include crt0.o nor libcygwin.a, then I do not
> > see why it would fall under the GPL more than any program that
> > references kernel32.dll would have any possible restriction from
> > Micro$oft.
>
> The definition of "program" in the GPL isn't limited to a single file.
> If your "program" consists of two files, which won't work separate
> from each other, then the "program" consists of both files, and terms
> of each must be applied to both.
>
> As for the Microsoft analogy, they license Windows in such a way that
> you can use it the way you describe.  They could have chosen other
> terms, but their goal was to *sell* as many copies of Windows as
> possible.  Our goals are different, thus our terms are different.
>
> > If your program can operate without Windows, then you don't have to pay
> > anything to Micro$oft, but if you *require* windows, then your customer
> > has to obtain the right to use Windows;
>
> We're not talking about the right to *use* cygwin.  The GPL doesn't
> cover right to *use*.  It only covers redistribution.  You can write
> whatever cywin programs you wish, and use them however you wish, but
> if you want to give them to a friend you must give them the full
> sources also.
>
> The GPL also has an exception for "software that is normally part of
> the OS".  The MS dlls would fall into this category because they
> normally come with Windows.  The cygwin dll would not, as it does not
> normally come with Windows.
>
> > It seems that Micro$oft is here more friendly to the developer than
> > Cygnus:
>
> Microsoft doesn't give you the sources to Windows.  I find that very
> unfriendly.
>
> > you are aloowed to develop code that *require* Windows without
> > having to pay anything to Micro$oft, and you can do what you want with
> > your code.
>
> But MS doesn't let you distribute copies of kernel32.dll with your
> applications, either.
>
> --
> Want to unsubscribe from this list?
> Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Bartlee A. Anderson           Opinions my own,         3CS Development
Rockwell International           not Rockwell's    Electronic Commerce
300 Bauman Ct.  MS 933-607                         Wood Dale, IL 60191
banders@ec.rockwell.com   FAX (630) 227-8040      VOICE (630) 227-8975


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

Re: Cygwin license

[DJ Delorie]

> Doeas that mean that my fancy shell script that use some bash-only
> feature, and is as such totally unusable WITHOUT bash, must then be
> GPLed?... I think this is neither what the GPL says nor enforceable or
> useful...

The GPL has exceptions for things that normally come with the
operating system, like bash.  Plus, bash can be used without your
script, but the cygwin dll can't be used without a program that's
designed to use it.

> You are saying that Micro$oft would be able to earn money from Cygwin
> just by saying that any program that requires Windows to run must pay a
> royalties to Micro$oft as it falls under some fine-print in Micro$oft
> Windows license?... 

They would have to apply to all programs indiscriminately, and I think
the Justice Dept would frown upon it ;-)

However, there's a difference between an established OS changing its
terms to its advantage late in the game, and a small toolkit whose
terms have been the same since its first release.

> If a program do NOT include crt0.o nor libcygwin.a, then I do not
> see why it would fall under the GPL more than any program that
> references kernel32.dll would have any possible restriction from
> Micro$oft.

The definition of "program" in the GPL isn't limited to a single file.
If your "program" consists of two files, which won't work separate
from each other, then the "program" consists of both files, and terms
of each must be applied to both.

As for the Microsoft analogy, they license Windows in such a way that
you can use it the way you describe.  They could have chosen other
terms, but their goal was to *sell* as many copies of Windows as
possible.  Our goals are different, thus our terms are different.

> If your program can operate without Windows, then you don't have to pay
> anything to Micro$oft, but if you *require* windows, then your customer
> has to obtain the right to use Windows;

We're not talking about the right to *use* cygwin.  The GPL doesn't
cover right to *use*.  It only covers redistribution.  You can write
whatever cywin programs you wish, and use them however you wish, but
if you want to give them to a friend you must give them the full
sources also.

The GPL also has an exception for "software that is normally part of
the OS".  The MS dlls would fall into this category because they
normally come with Windows.  The cygwin dll would not, as it does not
normally come with Windows.

> It seems that Micro$oft is here more friendly to the developer than
> Cygnus:

Microsoft doesn't give you the sources to Windows.  I find that very
unfriendly.

> you are aloowed to develop code that *require* Windows without
> having to pay anything to Micro$oft, and you can do what you want with
> your code.

But MS doesn't let you distribute copies of kernel32.dll with your
applications, either.

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

RE: Cygwin license

[Bernard Dautrevaux]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3843 bytes --]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DJ Delorie [ mailto:dj@delorie.com ]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 1999 1:45 AM
> To: smorris@nexen.com
> Cc: cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com
> Subject: Re: Cygwin license
> 
> 
> 
> OK, massive legal arguments (from both sides) aside, it is Cygnus's
> intent that any programs that are linked with libcygwin.a must be
> distributed under the terms of the GPL.
> 
> RMS's opinion on DLLs (and shared libraries in Unix) is that the mere
> fact that they exist in a separate file does not in itself make them a
> separate program in the eyes of the GPL (which has itself been subject
> to lengthy legal review).  Since the two (your exe and cygwin's dll)
> are inseparable for the purpose of running your program, they are
> legally (according to the GPL) considered *one* program.  

Doeas that mean that my fancy shell script that use some bash-only
feature, and is as such totally unusable WITHOUT bash, must then be
GPLed?... I think this is neither what the GPL says nor enforceable or
useful...

> This means
> that the GPL on the dll *does* apply to programs that require it.

You are saying that Micro$oft would be able to earn money from Cygwin
just by saying that any program that requires Windows to run must pay a
royalties to Micro$oft as it falls under some fine-print in Micro$oft
Windows license?... 

I think the only allowed restriction you could put on using a separate
piece of code, or any other code that requires it, is to have the right
to use it. So if someone has the right to use cygwin.dll on his machine,
he can use it and use with it any other piece of code.

If a program do NOT include crt0.o nor libcygwin.a, then I do not see
why it would fall under the GPL more than any program that references
kernel32.dll would have any possible restriction from Micro$oft. You
could say that I'm not allowed to distribute cygwin.dll with my product,
but that will be contrary to the GPL (as long as I distribute its source
code also).  

> 
> If your program can operate *without* a cygwin dll available, then I
> would probably agree that the libcygwin.a code *may* fall into that
> "interoperability" regime (although, at the moment, any program that
> uses libcygwin.a usually does so in such a way that it will not
> operate without cygwin1.dll) if they avoid anything in libccrt0,
> libcmain, getopt, dll_entry, or dll_main, which aren't in the dll at
> all (the remainder of the objects are dll thunks, which can easily be
> regenerated from cygwin1.dll itself with microsoft tools).
> 

If your program can operate without Windows, then you don't have to pay
anything to Micro$oft, but if you *require* windows, then your customer
has to obtain the right to use Windows; nobody can force hime to pay for
thi sright with each of th eprograms he want to use on Windows (and
don't say that the user do not pay twice for it: if I need a licence to
create Windows code using mingw32, I have to ask the custormer to pay
for it...)

It seems that Micro$oft is here more friendly to the developer than
Cygnus: you are aloowed to develop code that *require* Windows without
having to pay anything to Micro$oft, and you can do what you want with
your code. If you want to do the same with cygwin.dll (which arguably is
quite a bit smaller than WindowsNT) you need to pay this right to
Cygnus.

I do not think that would be acceptable if it has to be defended in
court...

Regards,

		Bernard

--------------------------------------------
Bernard Dautrevaux
Microprocess Ingéniérie
97 bis, rue de Colombes
92400 COURBEVOIE
FRANCE
Tel:	+33 (0) 1 47 68 80 80
Fax:	+33 (0) 1 47 88 97 85
e-mail:	dautrevaux@microprocess.com
		b.dautrevaux@usa.net
-------------------------------------------- 

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

Re: Cygwin license

[Steve Morris]

Earnie Boyd writes:
 > ---Steve Morris <smorris@nexen.com> wrote:
 > --8<--
 > > I keep hammering on this issue because I believe that cygwin is much
 > > less valuable unless common tools, not part of the core set, are also
 > > available in binary form. It is unreasonable to expect every user of
 > > cygwin to collect all the sources for all useful utilities and build
 > > them.
 > --8<--
 > 
 > Thanks, Steve, for hammering.  This issue needs to be "put to the
 > test" and I don't think this thread needs to be dropped yet as there
 > hasn't been a resolution.  

Lets split the thread in half and drop one half. Here are the two
topics that get intermingled.

o - Distribution of binaries that do not have available source. This
would include commercial packages. Let's drop this sub-thread and
leave it to the lawyers of the respective parties.

o - Distribution of binaries for packages currently available in
source where someone wants to provide a valuable compiling
service. Let's figure out how to do this without:

1) Violating Cygnus license

2) Placing an undue burden on people intending to help people do what
they already have the right to do.

Currently people provide binaries, some possibly in violation of the
license, and Cygnus eithor doesn't know or doesn't persue them. I
prefer to believe that Cygnus quietly supports the efforts with
intentional benign neglect but I can't speak for Cygnus. However this
exposes those people to unfair risk. Let's define to everyone's
satisfaction how to do this right.

> If you plan to supply binaries using the cygwin1.dll then you must:
> 1) provide a means to obtain the source for that version of the
> cygwin1.dll
> 2) provide a means to obtain the source for the packages that the
> cygwin1.dll is dependent upon.
> 3) provide a means to obtain the source for the packages that you are
> providing binaries for and ensure that those packages meet the
> requirements for the GPL.
> 
> Does anyone disagree with this?

It is my understanding that there is no 2). cygwin stands
alone. Cygwin is currently packaged with many tools that depend on
cygwin.dll but not the other way around. I believe that cygwin in this
context (i.e. which sources need to be included in binary
distributions of third party software) consists of cygwin.dll,
libcygwin.a and the sources necessary to build these and link to
them. Someone at Cygnus should say wether they agree.

I think someone should make a Cygnus blessed tar ball of just those
files as a public service and then the Cygnus source requirement can
be met by proving the blessed tar ball. One person can solve the
problem and the binary distributors can share the results, everybody
is happy.

People have suggested that extracting just those files might not be
easy but remember GPL doesn't say the result has to be easy to build,
merely that they are complete.

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

Re: Cygwin license

[Earnie Boyd]

---DJ Delorie <dj@delorie.com> wrote:
>
> 
> > 1) provide a means to obtain the source for that version of the
> > cygwin1.dll
> > 2) provide a means to obtain the source for the packages that the
> > cygwin1.dll is dependent upon.
> 
> If you do 1, what's left for 2?

As I understand it, the sources for cygwin1.dll are in the winsup
package; however, to build these I also need the newlib package and
maybe others.  But I can see how this needed clarified.
==
-                        \\||//
-------------------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: Cygwin license

[Suhaib M. Siddiqi]

>Currently, as I see it, the only way to keep compliance with all open
>source licenses is to provide instructions on where to find the tools,
>where to find the source and provide instructions on what to change
>and how to build them yourself with warnings not to distribute the
>binaries.  Bartlee first stated this as a suggestion (at least most of
>it), I reiterated it and no one has yet made any comments to
>contridict it.
>
>If you plan to supply binaries using the cygwin1.dll then you must:
>1) provide a means to obtain the source for that version of the
>cygwin1.dll
>2) provide a means to obtain the source for the packages that the
>cygwin1.dll is dependent upon.
>3) provide a means to obtain the source for the packages that you are
>providing binaries for and ensure that those packages meet the
>requirements for the GPL.
>
>Does anyone disagree with this?
>

I agree!!!

Suhaib

PS: Ernie, I noticed a few of your messages sent to me from Yahoo.com bounced.  Sorry about it, we block all the emails originating from yahoo.com prontomail.com, lycos.com and other web based server because of a huge number of SPAM also originating from these sites.  If you reply my message make sure you change my address from ssiddiqi@inspirepharm.com to ssiddiqi@ipass.net.  Sorry about it.


>==
>-                        \\||//
>-------------------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
>
>



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

Re: Cygwin license

[DJ Delorie]

> 1) provide a means to obtain the source for that version of the
> cygwin1.dll
> 2) provide a means to obtain the source for the packages that the
> cygwin1.dll is dependent upon.

If you do 1, what's left for 2?

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

Re: Cygwin license

[Earnie Boyd]

---Steve Morris <smorris@nexen.com> wrote:
--8<--
> I keep hammering on this issue because I believe that cygwin is much
> less valuable unless common tools, not part of the core set, are also
> available in binary form. It is unreasonable to expect every user of
> cygwin to collect all the sources for all useful utilities and build
> them.
--8<--

Thanks, Steve, for hammering.  This issue needs to be "put to the
test" and I don't think this thread needs to be dropped yet as there
hasn't been a resolution.  

Currently, as I see it, the only way to keep compliance with all open
source licenses is to provide instructions on where to find the tools,
where to find the source and provide instructions on what to change
and how to build them yourself with warnings not to distribute the
binaries.  Bartlee first stated this as a suggestion (at least most of
it), I reiterated it and no one has yet made any comments to
contridict it.

If you plan to supply binaries using the cygwin1.dll then you must:
1) provide a means to obtain the source for that version of the
cygwin1.dll
2) provide a means to obtain the source for the packages that the
cygwin1.dll is dependent upon.
3) provide a means to obtain the source for the packages that you are
providing binaries for and ensure that those packages meet the
requirements for the GPL.

Does anyone disagree with this?

==
-                        \\||//
-------------------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: Cygwin license

[Steve Morris]

DJ Delorie writes:
 > 
 > > Specifically it should be possible for people to legally provide a
 > > service of compiling to binaries software that people already have a
 > > legal right to use. It is silly that Andy Piper, Earnie, Sergey et al
 > > are in technical violation of cygwin licensing terms when they are
 > > merely saving the rest of us time and effort.
 > 
 > The GPL was designed - by *lawyers* - to prevent people from
 > distributing a binary without sources.
 >
 > As far as Andy et al providing a "service" to others, yes I agree that
 > it's a good service.  However, they must *legally* put the sources
 > they used out there with the binaries.  The GPL requires it.  Patches
 > are not acceptable.  Relying on a third party's ftp site is not
 > acceptable.  If Andy puts out a binary for emacs, and the FSF stops
 > distributing emacs sources, Andy has broken the law.  Considering how
 > trivial it is to zip up the sources too, is it really a problem?

I am trying to limit the discussion to cygwin sources. The issue of
providing inetd, man, less etc sources with the binaries can be
discussed elsewhere where those packages are apropriately discussed.
For the sake of this discussion please assume these requirements have
been met.

The critical question relevent qto members of this list is whether
people who provide the service of compiling generally available third
party sources into cygwin executables must also provide the full
cygwin source distribution for 3 years and do so for each cygwin
version they distribute against.

If the full distribution is not required is it enough to provide a
distribution of sources for ligcugwin.a and the headers since that is
all that are compiled against and linked in? Or possibly theose plus
the sources for the dll. If so it would be useful if someone
(hopefully at Cygnus as the interested party) could package this
required subset into a single tar ball as an aid to people trying to
provide this extremely useful compiling service. At least Cygnus needs
to spell out exactly which files need to be to provided in
source. This is a legal requirement if Cygwin expects the license to
be enforcable.  I'm sure that Cygnus doesn't suggest that sources for
gcc and bash and other utilities needs to be provided in
source. Exactly where is the cut.

Cygnus should eithor make it simple for these service providers to
meet the cygwin GPL source requirements with their binaries or take on
the additional burden of providing binaries themselves. The first is
obviously the most desireable.

I keep hammering on this issue because I believe that cygwin is much
less valuable unless common tools, not part of the core set, are also
available in binary form. It is unreasonable to expect every user of
cygwin to collect all the sources for all useful utilities and build
them.


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

Re: Cygwin license

[DJ Delorie]

> Specifically it should be possible for people to legally provide a
> service of compiling to binaries software that people already have a
> legal right to use. It is silly that Andy Piper, Earnie, Sergey et al
> are in technical violation of cygwin licensing terms when they are
> merely saving the rest of us time and effort.

The GPL was designed - by *lawyers* - to prevent people from
distributing a binary without sources.  A "legal right to use" is
irrelevent in this case, as the GPL's scope simply doesn't cover
*using* software (section 0, para 2).  The GPL requires that the
distribution of a binary imply availability of *those* sources
guaranteed by the distributer of the binary, regardless of whether or
not the recipient has a right to use.  The GPL also clearly states
that if for any reason you are unable to meet all the requirements of
the GPL, then the only way to satisfy the GPL is to not distribute the
software (binary or source) at all (section 7 para 1).

As far as Andy et al providing a "service" to others, yes I agree that
it's a good service.  However, they must *legally* put the sources
they used out there with the binaries.  The GPL requires it.  Patches
are not acceptable.  Relying on a third party's ftp site is not
acceptable.  If Andy puts out a binary for emacs, and the FSF stops
distributing emacs sources, Andy has broken the law.  Considering how
trivial it is to zip up the sources too, is it really a problem?

Note that this is different from the case where person A gives sources
to person B for person B to compile on behalf of person A.  In this
case, as long as B doesn't change the sources, the GPL is already met
because when B gives A the binary, B knows that A has the sources for
that binary.  B pedants could just give the sources back to A anyway,
but it wouldn't make a difference for A if they already have a copy.

PS: I'm not saying Andy *is* breaking the law.  I don't know.  Maybe
he does the right thing, maybe not.  It's just an example.  OK?

> We agree on everything except the interpretation of the GPL under
> the laws of the US.

Perhaps, but the GPL has been reviewed by many lawyers, and I feel
that it's a pretty solid legal document.  My "interpretation" of the
GPL is based on many lengthy conversations with RMS over the last 11
years, since none of these issues is new.

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

Re: Cygwin license

[DJ Delorie]

OK, massive legal arguments (from both sides) aside, it is Cygnus's
intent that any programs that are linked with libcygwin.a must be
distributed under the terms of the GPL.

RMS's opinion on DLLs (and shared libraries in Unix) is that the mere
fact that they exist in a separate file does not in itself make them a
separate program in the eyes of the GPL (which has itself been subject
to lengthy legal review).  Since the two (your exe and cygwin's dll)
are inseparable for the purpose of running your program, they are
legally (according to the GPL) considered *one* program.  This means
that the GPL on the dll *does* apply to programs that require it.

If your program can operate *without* a cygwin dll available, then I
would probably agree that the libcygwin.a code *may* fall into that
"interoperability" regime (although, at the moment, any program that
uses libcygwin.a usually does so in such a way that it will not
operate without cygwin1.dll) if they avoid anything in libccrt0,
libcmain, getopt, dll_entry, or dll_main, which aren't in the dll at
all (the remainder of the objects are dll thunks, which can easily be
regenerated from cygwin1.dll itself with microsoft tools).

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

Re: Cygwin license

[Steve Morris]

DJ Delorie writes:
 > 
 > > There has to be a way of legally allowing people to give binaries away
 > > while still charging the people selling commercial packages.
 > 
 > What's the difference?  Just cost?

Specifically it should be possible for people to legally provide a
service of compiling to binaries software that people already have a
legal right to use. It is silly that Andy Piper, Earnie, Sergey et al
are in technical violation of cygwin licensing terms when they are
merely saving the rest of us time and effort.

 > >From a license point of view, we can certainly add whatever extra
 > exceptions we want, or even write a whole new one.  However, at the
 > moment, the license is GPL, so that's what we all have to abide by.

We agree on everything except the interpretation of the GPL under the
laws of the US. However that is a separate issue which I personally
would be happy to drop having no vested interest in the
conversation. I only insist on not being misinterpreted. I don't care
if anyone agrees. That's what makes a horse race interesting.




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

Re: Cygwin license

[Steve Morris]

DJ Delorie writes:
 > Linux does not live on top of the HURD.

On the Alpha? I had heard that it did. I don't mean the Intel Linux
port.

 > > So if I develop code from scratch in cygwin, compile it in cygwin and
 > > want to distribute the binaries, free, to users of the sourceware
 > > version of Cygwin, Cygnus says no. Cygnus is suggesting that I don't
 > > have the right to give away non GPL binary code to the users of the
 > > cygwin development environment without giving them money for the
 > > privilege. All because I need to compile in the "glue" required to
 > > interoperate with other programs in the cygwin.dll platform.
 > 
 > We don't consider cygwin to be "glue".  There is a substantial amount
 > of work and new functionality in cygwin.  Calling it "glue" is
 > insulting to the people who created it.  

Please stop puting words in my mouth. I am trying to stick to
facts. No insult is intended. I do not refer to cygwin as glue and
never have. It is obviously an impressive and high quality
accomplishment. I am extremely glad for its existance. 

However it is my understanding that most of cygwin lives in the
dll. The interface to this dll, i.e. the headers and the dll interface
library is what I am referring to as glue. glue to connect the
executable to the cygwin environment. I am not suggesting that the
entire cygwin package is merely glue to win32. Those are your words,
not mine.

I am suggesting that the interface library and headers are legally
different from the dll itself and may have different legal
requirements concerning licensing. dlls are often distributed
seperately from the interface "glue" to the dll. Most of the dlls in
use are part of Windows. These are not considered part of the
executables that use them. This is a distinction that you are
ignoring.

I contend that cygwin comes in two parts. 1) The cygwin.dll and 2) a
thin interface layer to that dll. Obviously Cygnus has full rights to
control cygwin.dll. It is not so obvious that they have equivalent
rights to control the interface to that dll. Interface code that
provides no "value add" other than a connection to an underlying
package tends to trip on interoperability requirements. The underlying
package can be controlled but the interface usually can't. Wether it
is in this case is a matter of law, possibly untested law.

 > We wrote a piece of software
 > that *adds functionality* to Windows.  If you want to use that
 > functionality, you must abide by our terms.

Only if those terms are legally enforcable. That is the subject under
discussion. Licenses only make sense in a legal context. Just like a
manufacturer cannot disclaim all warrenty for their products, Cygnus
cannot arbitrarily restrict use of their code. Whether this particular
restriction on the interface to the dll is legally valid is the topic
under discussion. It may be. Cygnus clearly believes it to be so. That
doesn't prove it.

 > You're grasping at straws.  The fact that the user has N cygwin
 > programs on their machine already doesn't change the fact that your
 > program uses cygwin and *includes* code from cygwin - code that does
 > more than just "glue" you to the OS (win32).

I am not grasping at straws. Please bring this conversation back to
the level of discussing facts and relevent opinions. I am eithor right
or wrong. In neithor case should you insult me. Counter my arguement
if you think I am wrong but please leave out the personal attacks. I
am merely stating my honestly held understanding.

In some sense I am a disinterested outsider since I have no plans to
or interest in providing non sourceware packages that run under
Cygwin. (I speak as if I did but that is merely a hypothetical.)
However I do not GPL my code. I provide an unlimited source license to
it with the usual disclaimers.

I merely happen to be an outsider who has some level of understanding
of the law. It is interpretation of the law that we are discussing.
Your persistance in misinterpreting my position has strengthened my
desire to make that position more clear, otherwise I would have
dropped out of this conversation and left it to interested parties.

To the extent that I have any interest at all I would like to see
Cygnus make money out of cygwin. I would pay a moderate fee for its
personal use at home. I would recommend to employers that they license
cygwin from Cygnus. In the past I have even provailed on a similar
recomendation for the Cygnus gcc cross tools. However I also believe
that the interoperability issue applies to cygwin.

So in summary:

1) I am not suggesting that Cygnus cannot control distribution of the
dll.

2) I don't think that cygwin is a trivial glue layer. My opinion is
quite to the contrary.

3) I wish Cygnus well and hope they make as much money as the law
allows.

4) I believe that it is possible that the law would allow the
unlimited distribution of code linked only to the dll interface as
long as the dll itself was not part of the distribution. The end user
then has the obligation to follow the cygwin GPL requirements,
i.e. they must legally acquire its use.

5) I believe that challenging legal positions has as much use and
validity as testing the security of encription or access. The law must
be challenged to be useful. Cygnus needs to stand on a strong legal
basis or it will not stand at all. Similarly software security must be
tested to find weaknesses. In neithor case is ill will
involved. Offense is not intended and shouldn't be taken. You would
not be offended if I suggested that there was an authentication flaw
in cygwin software. You shouldn't be offended if I similarly suggest
that there is a flaw in cygwin licensing. Both are merely theories
which need testing and possible bug fixing.


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

Re: Cygwin license

[Earnie Boyd]

---Steve Morris <smorris@nexen.com> wrote:
--8<--
> There has to be a way of legally allowing people to give binaries away
> while still charging the people selling commercial packages.
--8<--

This is what I was striving toward.  Currently, the only way I see to
work around this is to do as Bartlee Anderson suggested.  Distribute
the cygwin package or suggest how to obtain it, distribute your source
code, provide a script for building your source with the cygwin
package to create a working binary.  Instructions on not distributing
the binary would have to be given as that would infringe upon the
copyrights of the individual packages.

Now, does anyone see any infringements with this scenario?

==
-                        \\||//
-------------------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: Cygwin license

[DJ Delorie]

> There has to be a way of legally allowing people to give binaries away
> while still charging the people selling commercial packages.

What's the difference?  Just cost?

From a license point of view, we can certainly add whatever extra
exceptions we want, or even write a whole new one.  However, at the
moment, the license is GPL, so that's what we all have to abide by.

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

Re: Cygwin license

[Steve Morris]

Fergus Henderson writes:
 > On 16-Mar-1999, DJ Delorie <dj@delorie.com> wrote:
 > > 
 > > [no attribution, but I think it was smorris@nexen.com:]
 > > > 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.
 > > 
 > > Nothing about gcc is LGPL.
 > 
 > Yes, smorris@nexen.com misspoke slightly, gcc is not LGPL.  But libgcc.a
 > is "GPL + special exceptions", the consequences of which are broadly
 > similar to LGPL, and I strongly suspect that without those special
 > exceptions, the same conclusion would hold.

Yes libgcc.a was what I ment. It is my recollection that LGPL was
originally invented for this library but I'll take your word for it. I
was there when these things were originally being discussed but my
memory is terrible.

If this is true I think we should stop talking about LGPL and talk
about a special exception only for the glue that allows a program to
run in the cygwin.dll environment. How about a special exception only
for people that want to provide cygwin interoperable binaries merely
as a service without the GPL burden of that glue. Make it a free
software exception for people not selling software. That would cover
Sergeys coolview and inetd, and the wide variety of binaries provided
by other helpful people, Andy Piper etc.. Cygnus is clearly looking
the other way on these already which means they agree with the spirit
of the suggestion. Cygnus is obviously well aware of these binary
distributions since their existance is discussed on this list.

There has to be a way of legally allowing people to give binaries away
while still charging the people selling commercial packages.


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

Re: Cygwin license

[Chris Faylor]

On Tue, Mar 16, 1999 at 09:36:30AM -0600, Bartlee Anderson wrote:
>Couldn't you just make instructions for the students to compile and link
>and therefore not distribute your code linked with cygwin.
>I think this falls under fair use... but I'm not a lawyer, I just think it
>seems
>right, not that that ever means anything if you do have to talk to a lawyer!

If the binaries link to an executable that uses cygwin1.dll then Cygnus's
licensing requirements apply.

cgf

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

Re: Cygwin license

[Chris Faylor]

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

FYI, gcc is not LGPLed.   Gcc is GPLed.

cgf

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

Re: Cygwin license

[Greg Miller]

Fergus Henderson wrote:
> > > Courts have held in other cases that glue software required for
> > > inter-operability can be used regardless of license conflicts.
> >
> > The cygwin startup code is not just glue, and there's nothing else for
> > us to be inter-operable with.
> 
> This issue might be inter-operability of e.g. my program written using
> cygwin.dll with someone else's program also written using cygwin.dll.

No, the issue would likely be interoperation between your program and
the DLL itself.

> The point is that your code *is* the OS, or at least part of it, from
> the perspective of POSIX programs.  From that perspective, smorris's
> arguments might hold.  Whether the courts would look at
> it from that perspective is of course an open question...

Actually, the only way I see that part being relevant is if cygwin were
to acquire such a large percentage of the UNIX API implementation market
(including both UNIX OSes and POSIX layers) that it became an antitrust
issue. It's more likely to come down to a matter of whether a judge
considers it feasible to use the cygwin DLL without the libcygwin
library. The import library and possibly the startup code are the only
things likely to be considered targets of the "fair use" clause.
-- 
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: Cygwin license

[Fergus Henderson]

On 16-Mar-1999, DJ Delorie <dj@delorie.com> wrote:
> 
> [no attribution, but I think it was smorris@nexen.com:]
> > 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.
> 
> Nothing about gcc is LGPL.

Yes, smorris@nexen.com misspoke slightly, gcc is not LGPL.  But libgcc.a
is "GPL + special exceptions", the consequences of which are broadly
similar to LGPL, and I strongly suspect that without those special
exceptions, the same conclusion would hold.

> > 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.
> 
> But they were part of the movement before there was an LGPL, and the LGPL
> doesn't apply to gcc anyway.

Again, smorris@nexen.com misspoke slightly -- he should have said 
with the special exception" rather than "without LGPL".

> > 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.
> 
> The cygwin startup code is not just glue, and there's nothing else for
> us to be inter-operable with.

This issue might be inter-operability of e.g. my program written using
cygwin.dll with someone else's program also written using cygwin.dll.

> Do you know of any other companies
> making a cygwin dll?  If the code were simply a way of hooking you do
> the Win32 API, I might agree, but we're providing a significant amount
> of extra functionality on top of the Win32 API.  The fact that said
> functionality emulates a POSIX environment is irrelevent; Win32 is not
> a posix environment so our code isn't there to make you interoperable
> with the OS.

The point is that your code *is* the OS, or at least part of it, from
the perspective of POSIX programs.  From that perspective, smorris's
arguments might hold.  Whether the courts would look at
it from that perspective is of course an open question...

> > If you consider sourceware cygwin.dll to be a general platform for
> > running UNIX code
> 
> We do not.

But would the courts?

-- 
Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au>  |  "I have always known that the pursuit
WWW: < http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh >  |  of excellence is a lethal habit"
PGP: finger fjh@128.250.37.3        |     -- the last words of T. S. Garp.

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

Re: Cygwin license

[DJ Delorie]

> 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.

Nothing about gcc is LGPL.  Only glibc is LGPL, and the only reason
*that* is LGPL is because it provides no value beyond what any other C
runtime provides, so there is no incentive to choose it over another.

> 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.

This has nothing to do with GPL vs LGPL.  The GPL just doesn't cover
the results of *using* a GPL'd program, only using the program's
sources.  This has always been the case.

> These people wouldn't be part of the free software movement without
> LGPL.

But they were part of the movement before there was an LGPL, and the LGPL
doesn't apply to gcc anyway.

> 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.

RMS doesn't care about how broad the distribution is.  He only cares
that the software he writes and uses is free to be used by everyone.
I tend to agree - I have no philanthropic interest in convering the
world to my views as long as *I* have the programs *I* need.

> As has been stated earlier on this list it is not clear that Cygnus
> can restrict the distribution of code that runs under Cygwin.

Since any cygwin application includes a significant portion of the
runtime within it, and it's a runtime that does not simply interface
you to the Win32 API (which is the platform you're running on),
there's a clear value added that's part of the source upon which your
binary was built (not including the dll).  It is primarily this code
that makes your application GPL.

> Courts have held in other cases that glue software required for
> inter-operability can be used regardless of license conflicts.

The cygwin startup code is not just glue, and there's nothing else for
us to be inter-operable with.  Do you know of any other companies
making a cygwin dll?  If the code were simply a way of hooking you do
the Win32 API, I might agree, but we're providing a significant amount
of extra functionality on top of the Win32 API.  The fact that said
functionality emulates a POSIX environment is irrelevent; Win32 is not
a posix environment so our code isn't there to make you interoperable
with the OS.

> If you consider sourceware cygwin.dll to be a general platform for
> running UNIX code

We do not.  It is a tool that helps you port unix code to windows.
The result is not a unix program any more, but a windows program.

> If it is effectively impossible (i.e. prohibitively expensive) to
> distribute code without including Cygnus licensed glue I suspect
> that the license is unenforcable.

Just because cygwin makes a hard job easy doesn't mean we're legally
obliged to guarantee we'll make it easy for everyone.  We have chosen
a particular set of terms which you may agree to or not.  If you don't
agree to them, you simply have to find another way.  The video game
analogy is inappropriate - it *is* impossible to run game X on system
Y without interfacing to system Y's APIs.  It *is* possible to write
program A to run on Win32 without interfacing with Cygwin's APIs.

> 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.

Nope.  It has always had the GPL's restrictions on it; you are free to
not use cygwin if you don't agree with the terms and you will still be
able to write Win32 applications (just not with Cygwin).

> (NOTE: It would probably depend largely on the license fee
> arrangement. The game manufacturers wanted steep per cartridge
> royalties.)

Irrelevent in our case, since cygwin isn't a mandatory component of
writing a Win32 program.

> 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?

Well, the original reason was because *we* needed it to port GNUPro to
NT.

> 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.

I think your argument is invalid because cygwin isn't a *mandatory*
part of developing Win32 programs.  It's a tool that makes it easier
to do certain things, but people have been writing Win32 programs long
before cygwin came along.  Now, if *Microsoft* tried to license the
import libraries for Win32, *then* I think there would be a legal
issue.

> In other words my legal hat is having a major arguement with my
> sourceware hat. Am I showing signs of split personality? ;-)

Yes.  No.  ;-)

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

Re: Cygwin license

[Steve Morris]

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

Re: Cygwin license

[Bartlee Anderson]

Couldn't you just make instructions for the students to compile and link
and therefore not distribute your code linked with cygwin.
I think this falls under fair use... but I'm not a lawyer, I just think it
seems
right, not that that ever means anything if you do have to talk to a lawyer!

Gernot Heiser wrote:

> >>>>> "DD" == DJ Delorie <dj@delorie.com> writes:
>
> >> However, we can, of course, not relax Stanford's restrictions on
> >> commercial use without their agreement (which seems unlikely). Hence we
> >> fear that we might be technically in breach of your license if we link
> >> SimOS against your library, even though we feel that we would be
> >> adhering to the spirit of it.
>
> DD> You could get a commercial license for cygwin, which would allow you
> DD> to choose a more restrictive license for SimOS, but then not allow the
> DD> resulting program to be used commercially.
>
> Yes, but $8k for a license just to produce code we give away freely to
> students, and while following the spirit (if not the letter) of the
> license seems a bit overdone.
>
> DD> Have you considered djgpp, which has exceptions in its runtime license
> DD> to allow for proprietary programs under some circumstances?
>
> Looked at it, but most likely it won't support a smooth port.
>
> Gernot
> --
> Gernot Heiser                ,--_|\   School of Computer Sci. & Engin.
> Phone:  +61 2 9385 5156     /      \  The University of NSW
> Fax:    +61 2 9385 5995     \_,--._*  Sydney, Australia 2052
> E-mail: G.Heiser@unsw.edu.au      v   http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~gernot
> PGP     fingerprint: 94 1E B8 28 25 FD 7C 94  20 10 92 E5 0B FF 39 8F
>
> --
> 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: Cygwin license

[Chris Faylor]

On Tue, Mar 16, 1999 at 05:01:32AM -0800, Earnie Boyd wrote:
>---Gernot Heiser <gernot@zuse.disy.cse.unsw.EDU.AU> wrote:
>> >>>>> "DD" == DJ Delorie <dj@delorie.com> writes:
>> 
>> >> However, we can, of course, not relax Stanford's restrictions on
>> >> commercial use without their agreement (which seems unlikely).
>Hence we
>> >> fear that we might be technically in breach of your license if we
>link
>> >> SimOS against your library, even though we feel that we would be
>> >> adhering to the spirit of it.
>> 
>> DD> You could get a commercial license for cygwin, which would allow
>you
>> DD> to choose a more restrictive license for SimOS, but then not
>allow the
>> DD> resulting program to be used commercially.
>> 
>> Yes, but $8k for a license just to produce code we give away freely to
>> students, and while following the spirit (if not the letter) of the
>> license seems a bit overdone.
>
>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.

>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.

We do consider changing the licensing from time to time but, so far, no
one has been able to convince the powers that be at Cygnus that making
cygwin into a LGPLed program would be worthwhile.  It would certainly
remove some of the incentive for buying the commercial product but,
perhaps more importantly, it would allow people to produce proprietary
applications based on the cygwin DLL.  That does not sound like a good
plan to me.

>Gernot Heiser's predicament is a good example of what is wrong with
>the way that the cygwin product is licensed.  Cygnus, I as an Open
>Source supporter speaking to an Open Source supporter, plead and beg
>with you to give Gernot Heiser the privilege of using cygwin with his
>package without paying anything to do so.  Open Source is and should
>always be free.  (Yes, I know you need to pay the bills, but this one
>isn't the same as someone making money from commercial software).

I don't think that this is a particularly good example of anything,
personally.  This is a very unique situation.

FWIW, I have forwarded this request to our marketing department when it
first appeared.  I asked them to provide a complimentary license to this
university.  We have no policy for this type of thing so it is being
mulled over now.

If Mr.  Heiser wants to pursue this directly he can send a request to
info@cygnus.com, detailing his requirements and mentioning that this has
come up in the cygwin mailing list (just to avoid a loop) and that Chris
Faylor suggested sending email there.

cgf

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

Re: Cygwin license

[Earnie Boyd]

---Gernot Heiser <gernot@zuse.disy.cse.unsw.EDU.AU> wrote:
>
> >>>>> "DD" == DJ Delorie <dj@delorie.com> writes:
> 
> >> However, we can, of course, not relax Stanford's restrictions on
> >> commercial use without their agreement (which seems unlikely).
Hence we
> >> fear that we might be technically in breach of your license if we
link
> >> SimOS against your library, even though we feel that we would be
> >> adhering to the spirit of it.
> 
> DD> You could get a commercial license for cygwin, which would allow
you
> DD> to choose a more restrictive license for SimOS, but then not
allow the
> DD> resulting program to be used commercially.
> 
> Yes, but $8k for a license just to produce code we give away freely to
> students, and while following the spirit (if not the letter) of the
> license seems a bit overdone.

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.

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.

Gernot Heiser's predicament is a good example of what is wrong with
the way that the cygwin product is licensed.  Cygnus, I as an Open
Source supporter speaking to an Open Source supporter, plead and beg
with you to give Gernot Heiser the privilege of using cygwin with his
package without paying anything to do so.  Open Source is and should
always be free.  (Yes, I know you need to pay the bills, but this one
isn't the same as someone making money from commercial software).

==
-                        \\||//
-------------------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: Cygwin license

[Gernot Heiser]

>>>>> "DD" == DJ Delorie <dj@delorie.com> writes:

>> However, we can, of course, not relax Stanford's restrictions on
>> commercial use without their agreement (which seems unlikely). Hence we
>> fear that we might be technically in breach of your license if we link
>> SimOS against your library, even though we feel that we would be
>> adhering to the spirit of it.

DD> You could get a commercial license for cygwin, which would allow you
DD> to choose a more restrictive license for SimOS, but then not allow the
DD> resulting program to be used commercially.

Yes, but $8k for a license just to produce code we give away freely to
students, and while following the spirit (if not the letter) of the
license seems a bit overdone.

DD> Have you considered djgpp, which has exceptions in its runtime license
DD> to allow for proprietary programs under some circumstances?

Looked at it, but most likely it won't support a smooth port.

Gernot
--
Gernot Heiser                ,--_|\   School of Computer Sci. & Engin.
Phone:  +61 2 9385 5156     /      \  The University of NSW
Fax:    +61 2 9385 5995     \_,--._*  Sydney, Australia 2052
E-mail: G.Heiser@unsw.edu.au      v   http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~gernot
PGP	fingerprint: 94 1E B8 28 25 FD 7C 94  20 10 92 E5 0B FF 39 8F

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

Re: Cygwin license

[DJ Delorie]

> However, we can, of course, not relax Stanford's restrictions on
> commercial use without their agreement (which seems unlikely). Hence we
> fear that we might be technically in breach of your license if we link
> SimOS against your library, even though we feel that we would be
> adhering to the spirit of it.

You could get a commercial license for cygwin, which would allow you
to choose a more restrictive license for SimOS, but then not allow the
resulting program to be used commercially.

Have you considered djgpp, which has exceptions in its runtime license
to allow for proprietary programs under some circumstances?

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

Cygwin license

[gernot]

Hi,

I'm a professor at the University of New South Wales (UNSW) in Sydney,
Australia and am teaching a course on operating systems.

For our assignments we use a teaching operating system called Topsy from
ETH Zurich, which runs on the MIPS architecture. We use the SimOS system
from Stanford to run Topsy on our various Unix platforms.

As many of our students own wintel systems we would like to make
SimOS/Topsy available for them to use when working at home on
assignments. We are confident that we can port SimOS to wintel, provided
we can link against the Cygwin API library.

This is where we have a licensing problem. Your license requires all
code to be linked against your library to be GPLed. According to
http://sourceware.cygnus.com/cygwin/licensing.html:

               The Cygwin API library found in the winsup subdirectory
               of the source code is also covered by the GNU GPL. By
               default, all executables link against this library (and
               in the process include GPL'd Cygwin glue code). This
               means that unless you modify the tools so that compiled
               executables do not make use of the Cygwin library, your
               compiled programs will also have to be free software
               distributed under the GPL with source code available to
               all.

The SimOS source is available under a license from Stanford University
(attached below). It differs from the GPL in that:

 - it does not require making code available in source form,

 - it does not allow commercial use.

We would be happy to be bound by the GPL requirement of making
everything we distribute as binaries available in source form. In fact,
we always planned to release our ports in source on the web.

However, we can, of course, not relax Stanford's restrictions on
commercial use without their agreement (which seems unlikely). Hence we
fear that we might be technically in breach of your license if we link
SimOS against your library, even though we feel that we would be
adhering to the spirit of it.

We would appreciate if you could clarify this licensing issue for us,
and hope that we will be able to use the Cygwin API library as outlined
above.

Yours sincerely,
Gernot Heiser

------------------------------------------------------------------------

License Agreement from Stanford University
------------------------------------------

1.  Hereafter, "SimOS" refers to the SimOS machine simulation
environment and all associated source and documentation materials.

This is a legal agreement between you, RECIPIENT, and STANFORD
UNIVERSITY.  By accepting, receiving and using SimOS, you are agreeing
to be bound by the terms of this Agreement.  If you do not agree to
the terms of this Agreement, promptly return SimOS to STANFORD.

2.  STANFORD grants to RECIPIENT a royalty-free, nonexclusive,
nontransferable, and non-commerical license to use SimOS furnished
hereunder, upon the terms and conditions set out below.

3.  RECIPIENT acknowledges that SimOS is a research tool still in the
development stage and that they are being supplied "as is," without
any accompanying services or improvements from STANFORD.

4.  STANFORD MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED.  By
way of example, but not limitation, STANFORD MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR THAT
THE USE OF THE LICENSED SOFTWARE COMPONENTS OR DOCUMENTATION WILL NOT
INFRINGE ANY PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS, TRADEMARKS OR OTHER RIGHTS.  STANFORD
shall not be held liable for any liability nor for any direct, indirect or
consequential damages with respect to any claim by RECIPIENT or any third
party on account of or arising from this Agreement or use of SimOS.
--
Gernot Heiser                ,--_|\   School of Computer Sci. & Engin.
Phone:  +61 2 9385 5156     /      \  The University of NSW
Fax:    +61 2 9385 5995     \_,--._*  Sydney, Australia 2052
E-mail: G.Heiser@unsw.edu.au      v   http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~gernot
PGP	fingerprint: 94 1E B8 28 25 FD 7C 94  20 10 92 E5 0B FF 39 8F

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