On Wed, 8 May 2002, Neil Conway wrote:
> 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.
I may be wrong about this ... this was prior to Redhat buying it out,
which I totally forgot about ...
