* RE: Cygwin license
@ 1999-03-18 23:12 Bernard Dautrevaux
[not found] ` < 8135911A809AD211AF6300A02480D175034935@iis000.microdata.fr >
1999-03-31 19:45 ` Bernard Dautrevaux
0 siblings, 2 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Bernard Dautrevaux @ 1999-03-18 23:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 'DJ Delorie', smorris; +Cc: cygwin
[-- 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$oft, and you can do what you want with
your code. If you want to do the same with cygwin.dll (which arguably is
quite a bit smaller than WindowsNT) you need to pay this right to
Cygnus.
I do not think that would be acceptable if it has to be defended in
court...
Regards,
Bernard
--------------------------------------------
Bernard Dautrevaux
Microprocess Ingéniérie
97 bis, rue de Colombes
92400 COURBEVOIE
FRANCE
Tel: +33 (0) 1 47 68 80 80
Fax: +33 (0) 1 47 88 97 85
e-mail: dautrevaux@microprocess.com
b.dautrevaux@usa.net
--------------------------------------------
--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
[parent not found: < 8135911A809AD211AF6300A02480D175034935@iis000.microdata.fr >]
* Re: Cygwin license
[not found] ` < 8135911A809AD211AF6300A02480D175034935@iis000.microdata.fr >
@ 1999-03-19 7:16 ` DJ Delorie
1999-03-19 8:41 ` Bartlee Anderson
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: DJ Delorie @ 1999-03-19 7:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: DAUTREVAUX; +Cc: smorris, cygwin
> Doeas that mean that my fancy shell script that use some bash-only
> feature, and is as such totally unusable WITHOUT bash, must then be
> GPLed?... I think this is neither what the GPL says nor enforceable or
> useful...
The GPL has exceptions for things that normally come with the
operating system, like bash. Plus, bash can be used without your
script, but the cygwin dll can't be used without a program that's
designed to use it.
> You are saying that Micro$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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Cygwin license
1999-03-19 7:16 ` DJ Delorie
@ 1999-03-19 8:41 ` Bartlee Anderson
[not found] ` < 36F27D52.6427D89C@ec.rockwell.com >
1999-03-31 19:45 ` Cygwin license Bartlee Anderson
[not found] ` < 199903191516.KAA00938@envy.delorie.com >
1999-03-31 19:45 ` DJ Delorie
2 siblings, 2 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Bartlee Anderson @ 1999-03-19 8:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: DJ Delorie; +Cc: DAUTREVAUX, smorris, cygwin
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
[parent not found: < 36F27D52.6427D89C@ec.rockwell.com >]
* Binary distributions of sourceware products
[not found] ` < 36F27D52.6427D89C@ec.rockwell.com >
@ 1999-03-19 9:21 ` Steve Morris
1999-03-31 19:45 ` Steve Morris
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Steve Morris @ 1999-03-19 9:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin
Bartlee Anderson writes:
> 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.
Everybody knows how to meet the Cygnus requirements the hard way. You
are describing the hard way. There is no arguement and frankly you
added nothing by stating the obvious. The real question is how can it
be made easy for people to provide binary distributions of the
hundreds of useful sourceware utilities as a compiling service. I
don't want to download the sources for inetd, less, man, cvs,
etc. etc. etc. Nice , helpful people are willing to do that for
us. How do we enable them to easily do so without walking all over the
Cygnus distribution terms.
Giving an executable by allowing it to be created is another name for
not giving the executable but giving source instead. You can't solve
the problem by renaming it.
Steve Morris
sjm@judgement.com
--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Binary distributions of sourceware products
1999-03-19 9:21 ` Binary distributions of sourceware products Steve Morris
@ 1999-03-31 19:45 ` Steve Morris
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Steve Morris @ 1999-03-31 19:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin
Bartlee Anderson writes:
> 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.
Everybody knows how to meet the Cygnus requirements the hard way. You
are describing the hard way. There is no arguement and frankly you
added nothing by stating the obvious. The real question is how can it
be made easy for people to provide binary distributions of the
hundreds of useful sourceware utilities as a compiling service. I
don't want to download the sources for inetd, less, man, cvs,
etc. etc. etc. Nice , helpful people are willing to do that for
us. How do we enable them to easily do so without walking all over the
Cygnus distribution terms.
Giving an executable by allowing it to be created is another name for
not giving the executable but giving source instead. You can't solve
the problem by renaming it.
Steve Morris
sjm@judgement.com
--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Cygwin license
1999-03-19 8:41 ` Bartlee Anderson
[not found] ` < 36F27D52.6427D89C@ec.rockwell.com >
@ 1999-03-31 19:45 ` Bartlee Anderson
1 sibling, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Bartlee Anderson @ 1999-03-31 19:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: DJ Delorie; +Cc: DAUTREVAUX, smorris, cygwin
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
[parent not found: < 199903191516.KAA00938@envy.delorie.com >]
* Re: Cygwin license
[not found] ` < 199903191516.KAA00938@envy.delorie.com >
@ 1999-03-19 8:57 ` Steve Morris
[not found] ` < 199903191657.LAA14989@brocade.nexen.com >
1999-03-31 19:45 ` Steve Morris
0 siblings, 2 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Steve Morris @ 1999-03-19 8:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
[parent not found: < 199903191657.LAA14989@brocade.nexen.com >]
* Re: Cygwin license
[not found] ` < 199903191657.LAA14989@brocade.nexen.com >
@ 1999-03-19 9:41 ` Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)
1999-03-31 19:45 ` Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) @ 1999-03-19 9:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Steve Morris, cygwin
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Cygwin license
1999-03-19 9:41 ` Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)
@ 1999-03-31 19:45 ` Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) @ 1999-03-31 19:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Steve Morris, cygwin
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 $.12. Now I am really out of this thread.
>
>Steve Morris
>sjm@judgement.com
>
>
>--
>Want to unsubscribe from this list?
>Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com
>
>
--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Cygwin license
1999-03-19 8:57 ` Steve Morris
[not found] ` < 199903191657.LAA14989@brocade.nexen.com >
@ 1999-03-31 19:45 ` Steve Morris
1 sibling, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Steve Morris @ 1999-03-31 19:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin
I know I promised to drop out of this thread but I couldn't resist
one last note.
DJ Delorie quotes:
> > It seems that Micro$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 $.12. Now I am really out of this thread.
Steve Morris
sjm@judgement.com
--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Cygwin license
1999-03-19 7:16 ` DJ Delorie
1999-03-19 8:41 ` Bartlee Anderson
[not found] ` < 199903191516.KAA00938@envy.delorie.com >
@ 1999-03-31 19:45 ` DJ Delorie
2 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: DJ Delorie @ 1999-03-31 19:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: DAUTREVAUX; +Cc: smorris, cygwin
> Doeas that mean that my fancy shell script that use some bash-only
> feature, and is as such totally unusable WITHOUT bash, must then be
> GPLed?... I think this is neither what the GPL says nor enforceable or
> useful...
The GPL has exceptions for things that normally come with the
operating system, like bash. Plus, bash can be used without your
script, but the cygwin dll can't be used without a program that's
designed to use it.
> You are saying that Micro$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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* RE: Cygwin license
1999-03-18 23:12 Cygwin license Bernard Dautrevaux
[not found] ` < 8135911A809AD211AF6300A02480D175034935@iis000.microdata.fr >
@ 1999-03-31 19:45 ` Bernard Dautrevaux
1 sibling, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Bernard Dautrevaux @ 1999-03-31 19:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 'DJ Delorie', smorris; +Cc: cygwin
[-- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~1999-03-31 19:45 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
1999-03-18 23:12 Cygwin license Bernard Dautrevaux
[not found] ` < 8135911A809AD211AF6300A02480D175034935@iis000.microdata.fr >
1999-03-19 7:16 ` DJ Delorie
1999-03-19 8:41 ` Bartlee Anderson
[not found] ` < 36F27D52.6427D89C@ec.rockwell.com >
1999-03-19 9:21 ` Binary distributions of sourceware products Steve Morris
1999-03-31 19:45 ` Steve Morris
1999-03-31 19:45 ` Cygwin license Bartlee Anderson
[not found] ` < 199903191516.KAA00938@envy.delorie.com >
1999-03-19 8:57 ` Steve Morris
[not found] ` < 199903191657.LAA14989@brocade.nexen.com >
1999-03-19 9:41 ` Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)
1999-03-31 19:45 ` Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)
1999-03-31 19:45 ` Steve Morris
1999-03-31 19:45 ` DJ Delorie
1999-03-31 19:45 ` Bernard Dautrevaux
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).