From: Reid Thompson <reid.thompson@...>
Date: 2006-10-29T02:39:10+09:00
Subject: Re: Another nail in CygWin's coffin (attached)

Austin Ziegler wrote:
> On 10/28/06, Tom Pollard <tomp@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On Oct 27, 2006, at 5:43 PM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
>> > Austin is basically right -- *nobody* should use CygWin as a Windows
>> > development platform/IDE/whatever.
>> Actually, I think Cygwin is a pretty reasonable platform for porting
>> Unix apps to Windows.  It made it possible for my company to use our
>> Unix build system (make files and shell scripts) under Windows more
>> or less directly, without any radical changes.
> 
> So. Is your company's product open source? Because if it isn't, and
> you're distributing it, you're violating the GNU GPL for Cygwin1.dll.
> In other words, if you're distributing your software on Windows with
> Cygwin, your software is now infected with the GNU GPL.
> 
> -austin
Actually that would only be true if they were distributing it without a
cygwin license.  RedHat does offer a license that allows redistribution
w/o requiring source code release.