This is the mail archive of the firstname.lastname@example.org
mailing list for the Cygwin project. See the Cygwin
home page for more information.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Re: Cygwin license
- To: G.Heiser@unsw.edu.au
- Subject: Re: Cygwin license
- From: Earnie Boyd <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 05:01:32 -0800 (PST)
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Delivered-To: email@example.com
- Delivered-To: mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org
- Mailing-List: contact email@example.com; run by ezmlm
- Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Sender: email@example.com
---Gernot Heiser <firstname.lastname@example.org.EDU.AU> wrote:
> >>>>> "DD" == DJ Delorie <email@example.com> writes:
> >> However, we can, of course, not relax Stanford's restrictions on
> >> commercial use without their agreement (which seems unlikely).
> >> fear that we might be technically in breach of your license if we
> >> 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
> DD> to choose a more restrictive license for SimOS, but then not
> 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).
-- firstname.lastname@example.org --
-- http://www.freeyellow.com/members5/gw32/index.html --
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 email@example.com