Removal of support for GCC hosted on UWIN

[Nick Ing-Simmons]

<dewar@gnat.com> writes:
><<So how does a binary that links (say) HPUX's libc.sl, or Sun's libc.so
>get allowed?
>>>
>
>Well I guess the answer is RTFL (L = license). There is a clear
>distinction made in the last paragraph but one of section 3 that
>obviously applies to the examples you cite here:
>
>------
>However, as a
>special exception, the source code distributed need not include
>anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
>form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
>operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
>itself accompanies the executable.

So if one considers UWIN an operating system (as the phase
"hosted on UWIN" implies) why the prohibition?
What is it about UWIN that is different from SunOS or HPUX - or come 
to that Mingw32 where we don't have the source to MS's C runtime.

(Being devils advocate mainly - just to try and under stand
 what GCC folk understand by GPL.)


-- 
Nick Ing-Simmons <nik@tiuk.ti.com>
Via, but not speaking for: Texas Instruments Ltd.