Hercules, Cygwin, and the GPV
Jay Maynard
Sep 5, 2000
I just got off the phone with Kathy Powers of Red Hat (the folks who bought
Cygnus Solutions, the owners of Cygwin). There's good news and bad news.
The good news is that the license would be for the Hercules project...so if
we were to obtain such a license, it would stay with the project, no matter
who the actual maintainer or distributor is.
The bad news is that the license is $25K...until the end of September, at
which time it will go up, probably to the price it was before the current
promotion, $100K.
I'm still willing to collect donations toward the license fee...though I
doubt it'll be possible to reach the needed amount.
Until we can license the cygwin package for use on other than GPL terms, I
cannot distribute Hercules for Windows with it compiled or linked in, or
even ready to link with the library. Further, I must ask others not to do
so, either. The Hercules Public License is not compatible with the GPL, by
design, and under the terms of the GPL, Hercules code cannot be distributed
linked with GPLed code. The Free Software Foundation has held in the past
that distributing code where the user need merely link in GPLed libraries
with it is the same as distributing the code already linked, and has said it
would pursue such distribution as a violation of the GPL.
I do not intend to remove the Win32-specific definitions from the Hercules
source code. If an individual user builds the package and does not
distribute it, he is not required to follow the terms of the GPL.
I'm sorry to have to take this position, but I see no alternative.
7:49 pm
Re: Hercules, Cygwin, and the GPV
rys@...
Sep 5, 2000
--- In hercules-390@egroups.com, Jay Maynard <jmaynard@c...> wrote:
>
> I'm sorry to have to take this position, but I see no alternative.
Jay, I understand the GPV vs GPL issue.
But, what, exactly, is cygwin providing that can't be distributed
without a license ? I'd be willing to try to program some of the
missing services. Of course, if it's gcc and/or glibc, then that
would be a different story. Just curious.
Greg Smith
10:09 pm
Re: Hercules, Cygwin, and the GPV
Sep 5, 2000
On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 10:09:42PM -0000, rys@... wrote:
> Jay, I understand the GPV vs GPL issue.
> But, what, exactly, is cygwin providing that can't be distributed
> without a license ? I'd be willing to try to program some of the
> missing services. Of course, if it's gcc and/or glibc, then that
> would be a different story. Just curious.
The hard part is the library that provides Unix services to Win32 programs.
The cygwin library has all of the magic needed to make Win32 services look
like Unix services; without it (which you can get to by using a switch that
disables the cygwin linking), you have to use Win32 API calls instead of
Unix system calls.
In effect, it's the glibc part of the package.
10:18 pm
Re: Hercules, Cygwin, and the GPV
Clem Clarke
Sep 6, 2000
If I can help? In my previous life, I was a senior systems programmer in
charge of performance on our MVT and MVS systems.
In my PC life, I have optimised quite a few Intel C, Assembler (370 and PC),
PL/I etc programs.
I also have a good knowledge of C (particularly Borland) in Win32 and OS/2.
I *suspect* that coding the Fork code etc directly in Windows would be
better that using cygwin code.
Incidently, I have a replacement JCL language that I want to get going for
Hercules. This brings up another area - what is wrong with the GPL licence?
Cheers Clem
rys@... wrote:
> > > But, what, exactly, is cygwin providing that can't be distributed
> > > without a license ? I'd be willing to try to program some of the
> > > missing services. Of course, if it's gcc and/or glibc, then that
> > > would be a different story. Just curious.
> >
> > The hard part is the library that provides Unix services to Win32
> programs.
> > The cygwin library has all of the magic needed to make Win32 services
> look
> > like Unix services; without it (which you can get to by using a switch
> that
> > disables the cygwin linking), you have to use Win32 API calls instead of
>
> > Unix system calls.
> >
> > In effect, it's the glibc part of the package.
> Thanks. I have ported some *ix programs to NT. I have also
> done, tho' a few yrs back, multi-threaded programs under OS/2.
> Maybe if we could get a list of the functions provided by cygwin
> and *not* provided by Win32, we can assess whether it's feasible
> to program these functions ourselves. I will, for my part, try
> to formulate the list. Unfortunately, on a relative scale, I rate
> myself a 1 on Win32, a 4 on linux, and a 10 on os/390;-).
> greg smith
>
> Community email addresses:
> Post message: hercules-390@onelist.com
> Subscribe: hercules-390-subscribe@onelist.com
> Unsubscribe: hercules-390-unsubscribe@onelist.com
> List owner: hercules-390-owner@onelist.com
>
> Files and archives at:
> http://www.onelist.com/community/hercules-390
>
> Get the latest version of Hercules from:
> http://www.conmicro.cx/hercules
--
,-._|\ Clement V. Clarke - Author Jol, EASYJCL, EASYPANEL, OSCAR,
370TO486
/ Oz \ oscarptyltd@..., Web:
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~oscarptyltd
\_,--.x/ P.O. Box 475, Toorak, Victoria, AUSTRALIA, 3142.
v Tel (61)-3-9818-8351, Fax (61)-3-9819-2848.
9:08 am
Re: Hercules, Cygwin, and the GPV
Jay Maynard
Sep 6, 2000
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 07:08:49PM +1000, Clem Clarke wrote:
> I *suspect* that coding the Fork code etc directly in Windows would be
> better that using cygwin code.
Probably so...the big problem here is in supplying the services Hercules
expects using nothing but Win32 API calls, something that extends far past
just the fork code.
> Incidently, I have a replacement JCL language that I want to get going for
> Hercules. This brings up another area - what is wrong with the GPL licence?
I'll let Roger speak for himself, since he owns the rights to Hercules and
has the final say as to its licensing.
As for me, I've believed ever since I've studied it - at least a decade -
that the GPL is a legal virus that contaminates everything it touches, and,
in the process, claims the right to dictate to others what they can do with
their own work. (That's why I refer to it as the GPV - General Public Virus
- for, if truth in advertising applied to the name, that's what it would
have to be called.) It is "free" only in a limited sense, if at all, and the
Free Software Foundation is perpetrating a fraud upon the community by
holding it up as an example of desirable freedoms. Finally, I believe that
Stallman's desired end result is little more than a software communist
utopia that will result in destroying the economy of software as we know it
today, and impoverish untold millions of people in the bargain. I refuse to
support such a wrong-headed dream.
With all that said, I'm not interested in hosting yet another flamewar over
the GPV on this list. Opinions on both sides of the issue are pretty
intense, and nobody's going to change anyone else's mind on the subject. The
issue's relevance to this mailing list is solely in relation to the
licensing of Hercules, and I strongly doubt that will change.
12:54 pm
Re: Hercules, Cygwin, and the GPV
Roger Bowler
Sep 6, 2000
--- In hercules-390@egroups.com, Jay Maynard <jmaynard@c...> wrote:
> I just got off the phone with Kathy Powers of Red Hat
> The bad news is that the license is $25K...until the end of
> September, at which time it will go up, probably to the price
> it was before the current promotion, $100K.
Yo! Welcome to the wonderful world of free software!
Roger
4:24 pm
Re: Hercules, Cygwin, and the GPV
Roger Bowler
Sep 6, 2000
Clem Clarke:
> what is wrong with the GPL licence?
It gives Red Hat, or anyone else, the right to use the code for their
own profit, without paying me or the other Hercules developers a
penny. Now I don't know about you, but to me that sounds like a
pretty bum deal.
Roger.
7:35 pm
Re: GPV vs. Hercules
colormecurious@...
Sep 7, 2000
--- In hercules-390@egroups.com, "Roger Bowler" <listmanager@s...>
wrote:
> > what is wrong with the GPL licence?
>
> It gives Red Hat, or anyone else, the right to use the code for
their
> own profit, without paying me or the other Hercules developers a
> penny. Now I don't know about you, but to me that sounds like a
> pretty bum deal.
>
> Roger.
As opposed to:
By submitting a modification you grant both the developer and the
maintainer a perpetual royalty-free right to include the modification
in future versions of the software and the right to distribute such
modified versions to anyone under the terms of this agreement and any
under other agreement at the discretion of the developer without
payment of any fee to you.
1:10 am
Re: GPV vs. Hercules
Roger Bowler
Sep 9, 2000
I wrote:
> to me that sounds like a pretty bum deal.
C.M. Curious <colormecurious@...> wrote:
> As opposed to: (extract from HPL)
Let us for a moment step into a parallel universe, and imagine
(hypothetically) that you are the marketing director of a corporation
which makes its living from selling Intel based plug compatible
mainframe solutions. Your CEO is nervous because a bunch of guys are
putting out a product which threatens the low end of your market, and
it's improving in leaps and bounds by the day. The only good news is
that the developer had the sense not to give away all rights under a
FSF-type license, otherwise the field would be wide open for some
over-capitalized VC funded startup to take this product, without
laying out any development costs themselves, and jump straight into
your market. "Johnathan," says the CEO, (for that shall be your name
in the parallel universe), "these are smart guys. If we provide them
with development funding they might allow us the rights to market the
Windows version of their product. That way we could tap into the
hobbyist/training/demo market without risking exposing our core
technology in a market where licensing is notoriously difficult to
enforce. And by popularising the concept of ESA/390 on Intel we can
drive demand for our own product higher up the scale. But don't let
on that we're interested." "It's ok boss," you reply, "I've
infiltrated their group under an assumed name, and I think I've got
away with it so far..."
8:57 am
Copyright 2000