On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 08:07:52AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 23:43 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 03:53:14PM -0600, Brendan Conoboy wrote: > > > Any particular reason to go with MinGW rather than Cygwin? Is there > > > room for both in the SIG? > > > > Cygwin has a licensing issue -- namely that it is GPL and so prevents > > any proprietary development on top of our libraries. > How can a toolchain not supporting proprietary development be an issue > to Fedora? It may-be sufficient reason for some users not use Cygwin, > but this his hardly Fedora's problem. You are in essense saying that only GPL software is allowed in Fedora which is utter nonsense. We want to use MinGW so that we can provide LGPL software, since Cygwin is GPL only, which is a perfectly legitimate choice to make. Daniel -- |: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :| -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
