>>>>> It doesn't use cygwin, therefore it's not related. Since this is a
>>>>> cygwin mailing list, that means the first two replies were correct —
>>>>> this isn't the place to discuss it.

>> When the vast majority of the code in the MSYS2 runtime is exactly
>> the same as the code in the Cygwin runtime, and Git for Windows uses
>> msys-2.0.dll in a number of places (which is essentially a renamed
>> copy of cygwin1.dll) the question was fair. Particularly given Cygwin
>> has its own git package, it's only natural to wonder how that differs
>> from Git for Windows, and how it differs from the probably lesser-
>> known msys2-git package (which is built in very nearly the same
>> configuration as the Cygwin git package, posix style).

> Only GfW and Msys2 Git projects can answer how Cygwin components are used by
> their projects. Most (all?) of Cygwin winsup and (all of?) newlib are available
> under permissive BSD(-style) licences that allow all uses of the code.
> 
> It's possible that the developers of those GfW and Msys2 Git packages have moved
> on from those projects and the current maintainers don't have the basis to answer.
> 
> One might expect some of those maintainers to be subscribed to this list and
> able to answer, but they may not, and just check web archives, or they may
> choose not to get into this discussion here, although they could perhaps suggest
> a more appropriate forum, or take the discussion off-list.

I've been watching this thread closely, but I had decided not to post since it
seemed like this discussion is unwanted by a part of the community.

On the surface, this discussion is about Git, so the most on-topic place to discuss
is the Git public mailing list.  I personally don't think the Cygwin mailing list
is off-topic.  Because most(all?) Windows Git distros use Cygwin code, it might be
even more useful to ask here (though I assume Johannes subscribes to Git ML and
he would be able to answer all the intricacies pretty accurately).

So far, Tony Kelman's descriptions were pretty spot on (that's why I didn't respond
to his call for corrections -- I couldn't think of any).

-- 
David Macek