"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
> On Tue, 7 May 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
>> It'd be worth trying to understand cygwin issues in detail before we
>> sign up to do and support a native Windows port.
> Actually, there are licensing issues involved ... we could never put a
> 'windows binary' up for anon-ftp, since to distribute it would require the
> cygwin.dll to be distributed, and to do that, there is a licensing cost
> ... of course, I guess we could require ppl to download cygwin seperately,
> install that, then install the binary over top of that ...
<<itch>> And how much development time are we supposed to expend to
avoid that?
Give me a technical case for avoiding Cygwin, and maybe I can get
excited about it. I'm not planning to lift a finger on the basis
of licensing though... after all, Windows users are accustomed to
paying for software, no?
regards, tom lane