[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: GNU Win32? Not anymore.



> The Debain association is not in any way perceived as a an embedded
> systems competitor to Cygnus.

> The software produced by the Debain Association is not
> "primarily intended" for use in embedded systems.

You are missing one important distinction - the Debian system is
designed to be the base for other distributions.  

So if Debian built a "Linux on Win32" distribution based on
your winsup code, and one of your competitors used it -- that would 
be legally problematic for everyone.

[Please don't take the following as a flame - it's just my personal
 opinion about Cygnus's business strategy]

I can't really see how you (Cygnus) can balk at releasing cygwin32 under
the LGPL due to "competitive pressures", and still justify the amount 
of real dollars they are spending on continued development of gdb, gcc,
and other projects.  I can't help but think that Cygnus is going to
try to "corrupt" the licenses of those too (to protect yourself from
competition).

Any software company that is going to play the "Free Software" game 
has to play by the rules.  You've got to demonstrate that your company
has enough development expertise on staff that you don't require
proprietary licenses -- that you'll always stay one step ahead of the
competition since you're just plain better.  

If you don't believe that you can do that - then you're going to need
proprietary licenses to prop you up.  "Free Software" (in quotes, as 
defined by RMS and the GPL/LGPL) has some built-in safeguards to prevent 
it from being mixed with the proprietary stuff.  So it's best to pick
one business strategy or the other - not both - or you're going to find
yourself "hung up on the fence".  

Other software companies have to live with FUD (Fear-Uncertainty-Doubt) 
because Microsoft creates it for them.  In Cygnus's case, you're creating 
it for yourself.  Duh.

Cheers,

 - Jim



Attachment: pgpDIeKrzZazM.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: