This is the mail archive of the cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project. See the Cygwin
home page for more information.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Re: Cygwin participation threshold
- To: Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.OZ.AU>
- Subject: Re: Cygwin participation threshold
- From: Lam Pui Yuen <yuen@hknet.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 17:09:20 +0800 (HKT)
- cc: Christopher Faylor <cgf@cygnus.com>, cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com
- Delivered-To: listarch-cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com
- Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com
- In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.3.95.990225170005.16688A-100000@topaz.hknet.com>
- Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm
- Sender: cygwin-owner@sourceware.cygnus.com
dear all,
sorry for this wrong reply mail.
Regs.
> done !
>
> On Thu, 25 Feb 1999, Fergus Henderson wrote:
>
> > On 24-Feb-1999, Christopher Faylor <cgf@cygnus.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 25, 1999, Fergus Henderson wrote:
> > > >Yes, but you can write and distribute proprietry applications or even
> > > >proprietry kernel modules for Linux without paying anyone a license fee.
> > > >The same is not true for Cygwin (although it *was* true once, back around
> > > >version b16, when it was called gnu-win32).
> > >
> > > True, but that is not the point. I believe this whold thread started
> > > because I lamented the lack of people contributing directly to cygwin
> > > development.
> >
> > You also asked why. I believe that licensing may be one of the reasons why.
> > So I don't think my comment is beside the point. You may disagree with me,
> > but I think we're talking about the same topic.
> >
> > > The many contributors to the linux kernel do not do so
> > > because it is possible to develop proprietary code for linux.
> >
> > That may not be their direct motivation, but I do think it is a
> > significant factor. I think that if it were impossible to develop
> > proprietry code for Linux, then Linux would have a much smaller user
> > base, and there would be far fewer contributors to Linux.
> >
> > > I don't consider companies who create proprietary kernel modules as
> > > contributing to linux development in any way.
> >
> > The ability to create proprietry kernel modules is of little importance.
> > The ability to create proprietry applications is of much greater importance.
> >
> > > Possibly they help indirectly
> > > by getting the word out about linux but that is a secondary and, IMO, very
> > > minor benefit.
> >
> > I agree that the benefits are indirect and secondary. However,
> > I don't think they should be ignored.
> >
> > In addition to getting the word out, companies which develop proprietry
> > applications (or kernel modules) often also help
> >
> > (1) by using Linux, and in the process sometimes reporting
> > and/or fixing bugs in the kernel and/or the various
> > open-source applications that are part of Linux; sometimes
> > they will even add whole new features which are needed for
> > their proprietry application (or module); and
> >
> > (2) by providing software (or drivers) which other people need,
> > and thus encouraging those other people to use Linux,
> > leading to the same benefits as (1).
> >
> > --
> > Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au> | "Binaries may die
> > WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh> | but source code lives forever"
> > PGP: finger fjh@128.250.37.3 | -- leaked Microsoft memo.
> >
> > --
> > Want to unsubscribe from this list?
> > Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Want to unsubscribe from this list?
> Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com
>
>
--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com