On Wed, 8 May 2002 01:03:37 -0300 (ADT)
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 7 May 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > It'd be worth trying to understand cygwin issues in detail before we
> > sign up to do and support a native Windows port. I understand the
> > user-friendliness objection to cygwin (though one would think proper
> > packaging might largely hide cygwin from naive Windows users). What I
> > don't understand is whether there are any serious performance lossages
> > from it, and if so whether we could work around them.
>
> Actually, there are licensing issues involved ... we could never put a
> 'windows binary' up for anon-ftp, since to distribute it would require the
> cygwin.dll to be distributed, and to do that, there is a licensing cost
Why? Isn't Cyygwin GPL'd? From http://cygwin.com/licensing.html I don't
see anything that would require licensing fees for OSD-compliant software.
Cheers,
Neil
--
Neil Conway <neilconway@rogers.com>
PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC
