From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Charles S. Wilson" To: Kurt Roeckx Cc: "Eric M. Monsler" , Corinna Vinschen Subject: Re: CYGWIN1.DLL Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 12:25:00 -0000 Message-id: <3B5490DC.1010108@ece.gatech.edu> References: <20010717143212.B730@cygbert.vinschen.de> <20010717152323.F730@cygbert.vinschen.de> <3B54715D.5DD3CDDA@beamreachnetworks.com> <20010717204004.A10116@ping.be> X-SW-Source: 2001-07/msg00956.html Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > Anyway, I'm of the opinion the DLL should be LGPL. It wouldn't > force us to release software under the GPL if it's linked against > it. > You're missing the whole point. That requirement is WHY cygwin is released under the GPL. It's a feature, not a bug. (Also, the FSF considers the LGPL to be a failed experiment, and no longer recommends its use. Ever.) With Red Hat's Cygnus-inherited modification to the GPL in clause 10, the GPL allows developers of free(speech) software to freely use cygwin. However, if you want to be proprietary, then you have to purchase a special proprietary cygwin license. Why should someone who wants to hoard their code be allowed to benefit from cygwin for free(beer)? Makers of proprietary software, that wish to use cygwin, OUGHT to pay for the privelege. Or they can open source their product, and avoid paying. > May I also point out that if you download the binaries, it > doesn't even say under which license it is. Neither does the Red Hat installer, or the Suse installer. Why is this a requirement? All packages are opensource--of various licenses--and the source code is provided for everything. Not all are GPL, but most are. > After running setup > nowhere did it mention it was GPL, nor can I find any file which > says it is. That's true. It is prominently stated on the web page, but perhaps the cygwin-1.3.3.tar.bz2 package should contain /usr/doc/cygwin.license or something. > I guess that's the pain if you distribute something > binary, and not everything has the same license. So we provide the most freedom possible: all packages are supplied with current source, including patches (or CVS) to revert to the "official" version. > The setup program itself, under what license does that fall? > Where are the sources of it, if they are available? GPL. CVS, or in the cygwin-src tarball, under winsup/cinstall. --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/