Re: cygwin.dll license (was Re: FreeQt ?)
[ I've not been following this thread too closely,
so if I've got the wrong idea, please forgive me ]
> The GPL is a very restrictive license. In many ways, it is just as
> restrictive as the Qt license. Particularily in the case of libraries,
> using it as Cygnus is doing (to make money) goes against the spirit
> of Free Software.
There is no obligation to give things away for no money when writing free
The word ``free'' here applies to the free-ly available source, which you are
allowed to take, and modify, and maintain yourself if you wish, and you can
then sell it for lots of money, as long as the people you sell it to also get
the source, and the right to modify, maintain and sell it, with the proviso,
The main evil that RMS was trying to combat with GPL was the fact that people
regularly get left with software for which they do not have the source, and
find that they can not get support from the original supplier for one reason
or another (gone bust, moved on to new versions etc.).
I suppose the thing that Cygnus seem to have done that might be morally wrong
is to take patches written in the freeware spirit, and started selling them
because they hold the copyright to the work as a whole.
I presume that the what they are selling is the right not to be bound by the
GPL restrictions that would normally apply --- is that correct ?
If they are actually maintaining two source trees, and stealing ideas from the
GPL source to enhance the commercial version, then I think they are in the
wrong, but I cannot imagine they would be doing that.
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .