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
