[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: New comps.xml group for Windows cross-compiler



Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 04:30:31PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> I wrote:
>>> Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>>>>     <_name>Windows cross-compiler</_name>
>>> Why not be specific and say MinGW cross compiler or MinGW32 cross
>>> compiler?
>> PS: I think using "Windows" that way can also get us in trademark trouble.
>> We'd have to say "Cross-compiler targeting Microsoft Windows" or something
>> equally stupid. Now of course using "Winblow$" or something like that
>> instead could avoid us the trademark lawsuit, but then RH Legal will freak
>> out about "disparaging". ;-) So I think "MinGW cross compiler" is the best
>> solution to keep the name short, and then description can cite the
>> trademarks in a way which is clearly fair use.
>>
>> What do you think?
> 
> I wanted a new name for this project that doesn't involve using
> trademarks and doesn't carry the baggage of "MinGW", and also reflects
> the fact that we might want to broaden support to other non-embedded
> platforms in future.
> 
> So far my best effort was "Consumer cross-compilers" (CCC) or
> "Consumer cross-compiler collection" (CCCC).

i also vote for this as we like to support other cross compiler in the
future and it'd be useful not to change the name.

-- 
  Levente                               "Si vis pacem para bellum!"


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]