From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jim Kingdon To: per@bothner.com Cc: cgf@cygnus.com, overseers@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Re: cygwin-xfree Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 04:35:00 -0000 Message-ID: <200005041135.HAA17116@devserv.devel.redhat.com> References: <20000503221805.A13179@cygnus.com> <200005040259.TAA07015@ferrule.cygnus.com> <20000503230655.B13804@cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2000-q2/msg00157.html Message-ID: <20000504043500.EvtEPsaVYPUqA4OQj0MiiNKOsY6FV4XXEw9-_TWhlx0@z> > How is this different from creating a port of X that runs under SunOS? At the risk of starting/continuing Yet Another Pointless Licensing Flamewar.... The SunOS libc and other required libraries aren't under a viral license (some proprietary compiler vendors, at least in the PC world, tried this some years ago, but they didn't get away with it. The most amusing crash and burn being the TI-99/4 which wanted developers to pay to develop products on that platform, sign NDA's, etc. With the predictable result - no applications and the eventual death of the platform). Now whether that has anything to do with the difficulty in getting the cygwin XFree patches merged in, I don't know. Over in Cristian's group (don't remember who specifically builds the XFree RPMs for the Red Hat Linux product but someone over there) they ship about 40 patches to XFree (last I looked), and licensing isn't an issue in that context.