Cygnus Cygwin32 Press Release 1/21/97

[Jim Pick]

I thought I'd just weigh in on this interesting thread.  (Maybe I
can help kill it)

First off, cheers to Cygnus and Geoffrey Noer -- you've done a 
nice job on the library.

Second, thanks for putting it under the GPL.  

I think that the problem arises when people assume the GPL is a
"free" software license.  In reality, it is designed to penalize
people who want to develop proprietary software, and encourage
the development of GPL'd software.  The GPL acts much like
a virus - that's why there is so much of it now.

Cygnus is going to distribute Cygwin-32 under 2 different 
restrictive licenses.  I don't see a problem with that - other
companies do it all of the time.  Contrary to what RMS thinks,
I do not think that developing proprietary software is unethical.

I do think that it is very important to inform people that they
cannot link their proprietary programs with the Cygnus libraries
without buying a license.  Many people seem to have misinterpreted
cygwin-32 to be a completely "free" set of development tools.
Since that is not the case, Cygnus will have to work hard to 
inform people of this case.

True, it would be nicer if it was under the LGPL (a slightly less
restrictive license) - but then it would be very difficult to make 
any money on it at all, and Cygnus would not be able to spend as 
much money on developing it further.  Also, IMHO, the LGPL is a 
really "icky" license.

I applaud Cygnus for trying to find ways of turning the Free Software
business into an industry.  Free Software benefits from having
people that make it their livelihood to write and support software,
since they end up doing the unglamourous grunt work that volunteers
will never do.

Some miscellaneous thoughts:  

- not all Free Software is GPL'd.  Legally, is it necessary to ask
  Cygnus for a license if you want to link some other code (ie. BSD 
  license) to the libraries?  Maybe it would be better to release 
  the code under some other custom restrictive license that would 
  enable the use of it with a wider range of "Free Software" 
  licenses.

- as another alternative to licensing developers on a per-seat 
  basis, maybe you should considering issuing run-time licenses.
  I think that this would probably be more enforceable anyways.
  Plus, companies such as Netscape and Microsoft could license
  the .dll to bundle with their software (similar to how Java
  and the Marimba stuff is licensed).

- in case anyone has any doubts - I think the GPL is the best
  license out there right now.  I do think that it could be 
  improved somewhat though.

I hope this debate ends soon.  If somebody doesn't like the licensing
terms, they are always free to reimplement a similar library on their
own, and under a looser license.

Cheers,

 - Jim





-- 
-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: 2.6.3

iQB1AwUBMweVZn59sdLqNNqRAQEOlgL+IkoxWQQyag1EJCu1DzAPy3ud0RG8a5jV
zu7s/eCSJmu4JxCoryvS+OoAGeeafpAk/6R6LY6eFfOEc8zEes88jvnXasYc8Iei
FQPc9iu1AEfb5YRse4So6+IB148w2x+R
=f4dH
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----