Linh Dang wrote: > Is it possible that Cygnus release GnuWin32 under a second license, the GPL > (not LGPL)? That would put it in the main Debian distribution. I believe, for > situation between Cygnus and its *direct competiors*, the GPL would have the > same effect as the current Cygnus License. They've already tried that (the GPL license) with the current cygwin32 winsup code. They asserted that code not under the GPL and dynamically linked against the library would have to apply to Cygnus for a different license. However, this was a contentious issue. In the end, I believe that Cygnus felt that it didn't provide enough protection for them from their competitors. They refused to use the LGPL, which would have been a much more compatible license with a "library". For the next release, they will use their own license, which specifically excludes competitors from even _using_ their product. I don't think they will also release it under the GPL or the LGPL, unless they have a change of heart - since those licenses may allow their competitors to use their product. Just a note: the winsup code in Beta 17.1 appears to be placed in the "public domain" - it isn't LGPL'd. Personally, I think that some good might come out of all of this. If we restart development from the Beta 17.1 code, we could possibly open up the development effort to be more like the model used for the Linux kernel. Since the potential audience for this would be very large (the Win32 market is huge) - I believe there would be no problem attracting a large number of developers to an "open" development effort. The net result would be that the product would develop at a much greater speed (with better quality) than is currently the case. Cheers, - Jim
Attachment:
pgpw3TMz4ugCZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature