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

Re: GNU Win32? Not anymore.

In <[🔎] 199707141658.JAA19824@fleming.jimpick.com> Jim Pick <jim@jimpick.com> writes:

> 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".

To quote a message that Jim Pick posted earlier, written by the Cygnus

: We have revised the licensing terms on Cygwin32.  Previously Cygwin32 was
: licensed under the GPL.  This restricted the use of Cygwin32 in proprietary
: software.  The new license allows Cygwin32 to be used in both free and
: proprietary software, except by direct competitors of Cygnus.
: Details of the new license are available from the GNU Win32 home page:
:     http://www.cygnus.com/misc/gnu-win32/
: We haven't yet built a new release, but when we do, we will be incorporating
: the new licensing terms into it.
: It has been tricky for us to figure out the details of the Cygwin32 license.
: This is because Cygwin32 includes both a set of applications, and a set of
: library code developers include with the code they have written.  The
: original license for Cygwin32 was the FSF Library GPL.  However, we found the
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                          ^^^^^^^^^^^

: Library GPL went to far in enabling Cygnus' business competitors to take and
: benefit from the work we had performed on Cygwin32, without contributing
: anything back in return.  As a result we decided to switch to licensing
: Cygwin32 under the GPL.  Unfortunately, we then found a lot of people who
: would otherwise have been interested in using Cygwin32 were unwilling to do
: so, because they were not willing to license their code under the GPL.  We
: are now attempting to find a balance somewhere between the two previous
: licenses we tried.

It appears to me that the Cygnus folks didn't have a problem with the
GPL license, they just thought that the LGPL was too loose.  They are
now trying to find something inbetween the GPL and the LGPL.

It looks to me like the Cygnus folks might allow a "GPL or <our
license>" option since the GPL is more restrictive.


p.s. sorry for so much quoting and so little additional comments, but I
wanted I didn't want to paraphrase these words and end up confusing

Wayne Schlitt can not assert the truth of all statements in this
article and still be consistent.

TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .

Reply to: