On Dec 6 20:04, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 03:48:33PM -0800, Gary Johnson wrote: > >(Please correct me if I've misstated the relationships between Red > >Hat, Fedora and Cygwin.) > > This isn't a Red Hat project. It's an open source project staffed by > volunteers like Yaakov. We do tend to base our decisions on how things > work on Linux because that's what the project has come to be modelled > after. Red Hat has nothing to do with it. If Red Hat was actually > calling the shots I wouldn't be here.
To clarify what cgf is saying here: The Cygwin DLL and thus the core Cygwin package is a Red Hat item in the sense that Red Hat is holding the copyrights to the package. Red Hat participates in the distro in three ways: 1. Me. I'm one of the maintainers of the Cygwin core package and I maintain a number of distro packages. My time I spent with Cygwin is basically paid by Red Hat. 2. Some of my collegues usally not dedicated to Cygwin do some jobs in the background, like the two collegues who helped with the 64 bit port, or one of my collegues currently working on an extension to the binutils project for the sake of Cygwin. 3. Red Hat is making money with Cygwin by providing service and the Buyout-license(*). This in turn is paying me and my collegues so we can perform 1 and 2. Here's where cgf's point is coming in: None of the above influence the way how the Cygwin distro as a whole is handled. The distro is entirely voluntary-driven. And we're trying to make the Cygwin distro reflect other Linux-distros (often, but not always, Fedora) if possible. Corinna (*) http://cygwin.com/licensing.html -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
pgp9JHVwR_EZX.pgp
Description: PGP signature