From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10131 invoked by alias); 15 Apr 2008 16:16:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 10119 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Apr 2008 16:16:49 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from fk-out-0910.google.com (HELO fk-out-0910.google.com) (209.85.128.186) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 15 Apr 2008 16:16:31 +0000 Received: by fk-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id 18so2410001fkq.2 for ; Tue, 15 Apr 2008 09:16:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.82.111.8 with SMTP id j8mr5053703buc.43.1208276186616; Tue, 15 Apr 2008 09:16:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.82.179.12 with HTTP; Tue, 15 Apr 2008 09:16:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <6910a60804150916l7d2b7bf6tdb242a7aa4994581@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 16:16:00 -0000 From: "Reini Urban" To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com Subject: Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area In-Reply-To: <20080415154400.GL23852@calimero.vinschen.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20080412151515.GG23852@calimero.vinschen.de> <20080413094246.GJ23852@calimero.vinschen.de> <20080413193513.GA13302@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <20080414095628.GA4069@calimero.vinschen.de> <20080414143631.GB18398@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <48041AC2.DA789E78@dessent.net> <20080415085515.GW23852@calimero.vinschen.de> <20080415090849.GZ23852@calimero.vinschen.de> <20080415141730.GA21313@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <20080415154400.GL23852@calimero.vinschen.de> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 01263e4250bc83d1 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Sender: cygwin-apps-owner@cygwin.com List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com X-SW-Source: 2008-04/txt/msg00216.txt.bz2 2008/4/15, Corinna Vinschen: > On Apr 15 10:17, Christopher Faylor wrote: > > I also object to using "Red Hat" as the "owner" [...] > > Red Hat *is* the owner of the code, regardless of the registry key you > want to use. I know that you have mixed feelings about Red Hat, > however, assuming the code is owned by the FSF, would you object against > a parent key name of FSF as well? Cannot we just use just "Cygwin" as the most obvious choice. We really don't have to use some artificial company name. -- Reini