Re: seperate xfree project on sourceforge

[Christopher Faylor <cgf at redhat dot com>]

On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 07:05:47PM +1100, Matthew Donald wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I been keeping winfree86 with a very low profile since its still not really
>ready for release even as alpha code.  However since Ralf Habacker stumbled
>across it, it's time to 'fess up.
>
>Winfree86 does not fork either the cygwin or xfree codebase.  It is much
>more akin to a distribution rather than new product.
>
>Yes, winfree86 does contain some new code, but I can't see how it can easily
>be incorporated into the existing project.  The problem is that this code is
>built using proprietary tools.  Although winfree86 is GPL'ed, it isn't a
>clean GPL.
>
>Why?  Well, integrating xfree into win32 cleanly is going involve COM
>objects.  AFAIK, gcc doesn't support COM (and the thought of doing COM in
>raw C is pretty revolting). Gcc wont work with MFC or ATL, and anyway both
>of those involve Microsoft licenses.  So that leaves a choice of using a
>Microsoft/Borland C compiler (do any other C compilers come with a MFC/ATL
>license?) or using a high-level language such as VB or Delphi.

So, it sounds like you have some immediate licensing issues that could
cause this project to be stillborn.  How are you going to work around
the fact that cygwin requires open source?

>Rasjid Wilcox had a very similar idea to winfree86 named winxterm (see
>http://lasp.sourceforge.net/winxterm/ ).  He has already produced a minimal
>cygwin + xfree of about 4mb.  If we can integrate the two projects winfree86
>(or whatever its called) will be available much sooner.

This sounds like YA ill-conceived fork.  And, oh joy, oh rapture, it is also
YA GPL violation.

I've Cc'ed Rasjid.  Rasjid -- you need to provide the sources for the
binary packages that you are providing, in compliance with the GPL.  Just
providing a link to cygwin.com is not sufficient.

cgf