On Tue, 2008-07-08 at 08:55 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > 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. Absolute not - I am actually saying the opposite: * The fact Cygwin appears to be GPL'ed only, is an issue to Cygwin users, because it may prevent them from using Cygwin for proprietary packages/development (must not link against non-GPL'ed libs). * The fact Cygwin appears to be GPL'ed only, is not an issue to Fedora. There is no reason for not including Fedora->Cygwin cross-compilers into Fedora. > 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. Of cause, ... Ralf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
