Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT cygnus DOT com>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 12:18:46 -0500
To: Fergus Henderson <fjh AT cs DOT mu DOT OZ DOT AU>
Cc: cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Subject: Re: Cygwin participation threshold
Message-ID: <19990224121846.A25762@cygnus.com>
References: <13561 DOT 990222 AT is DOT lg DOT ua> <199902221654 DOT LAA07362 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <19990222183222023 DOT AAA254 AT carl_zmola> <19990223214848 DOT A23525 AT cygnus DOT com> <19990225005148 DOT 53402 AT mundook DOT cs DOT mu DOT OZ DOT AU>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.1i
In-Reply-To: <19990225005148.53402@mundook.cs.mu.OZ.AU>; from Fergus Henderson on Thu, Feb 25, 1999 at 12:51:48AM +1100

On Thu, Feb 25, 1999 at 12:51:48AM +1100, Fergus Henderson wrote:
>On 23-Feb-1999, Christopher Faylor <cgf AT cygnus DOT com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 22, 1999, Carl Zmola wrote:
>> >
>> >The fact that a company is in charge of 
>> >coordinating the efforts has an effect.
>> >
>> >In the past the main reason I didn't even investigate contributing is :
>> >Because of the feeling that contributions are unwanted, and that someone
>> >else is making money of of my work.
>> >
>> >After a little investigation, I found that these wern't valid concerns, but
>> >they are a first line of resistance.  
>> 
>> It is interesting that you felt this way at first.  I wonder if the reason
>> has anything to do with the name "Cygwin" which sounds so similar to "Cygnus".
>> 
>> The reason I am saying this is because hundreds of people have contributed to
>> the linux project and *many* companies make money from linux.
>
>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.  The many contributors to the linux kernel do not do so
because it is possible to develop proprietary code for linux.

I don't consider companies who create proprietary kernel modules as
contributing to linux development in any way.  Possibly they help indirectly
by getting the word out about linux but that is a secondary and, IMO, very
minor benefit.

cf

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com