From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27829 invoked by alias); 14 Aug 2006 17:54:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 22852 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Aug 2006 17:52:10 -0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_20 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org From: "Dave Korn" To: Subject: RE: Rsync over ssh (pulling from Cygwin to Linux) stalls.. Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 17:54:00 -0000 Message-ID: <006d01c6bfca$57d28030$a501a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962 In-Reply-To: <44E0B1D9.8020900@netbauds.net> Thread-Index: Aca/x3ptaB4uRMxbQWOEaW7Ikn4iHgAAR1Cg X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Aug 2006 17:52:00.0211 (UTC) FILETIME=[57B05230:01C6BFCA] Mailing-List: contact cygwin-licensing-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-licensing-owner@cygwin.com X-SW-Source: 2006-q3/txt/msg00002.txt.bz2 On 14 August 2006 18:25, Darryl Miles wrote: > Dave Korn wrote: >> On 14 August 2006 18:08, Darryl Miles wrote: >> >> TITTLL, /please/. I am sending a reply there which (I think) addresses >> most of your points. >> >>> mwoehlke wrote: >> >>>> IANALTYMSIEIAATS... >> >>> IANAL also. >> >> This is the cygwin mailing list. A discussion of legal matters between >> two people - who both /admit/ they have no authoritative understanding of >> what they're talking about - is off-topic. Not to mention most likely >> uninformative and unproductive. > > Yes sorry for that, I wasn't actually aware there was a license list > until just pointed out. I am just subscribing now. > > But in response to your quip, it also part of the problem, I'm not going > to appoint legal council address this issue, its just not that important > to me. So it has to be sorted out in a manner that appeases my current > understanding, which in this case means don't sign anything that might > gives up any rights I currently have or anything I do not understand! > > End of discussion here, moved to the other list now... In fact, that post came to "the other list" (which is now 'here') rather than the main list anyway. Well, to get started, I already posted a reply to your earlier post: http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-licensing/2006-q3/msg00000.html Also, a couple of selected points from your follow-up: > The beef is that I am forced to signed a legally binding agreement with > a profit generating organization in order to contribute code for free. Why is this a problem? It doesn't cost you anything except maybe 70p for postage to the USA. > Another concern (as citizen of the UK) is that from what I perceive of > US law, is that those with the most money end up winning fringe civil > court cases. Nothing in the contract says you owe them money for anything. Therefore if they attempt to enforce it in court, the most they could claim is the $0 that you owe them. This would cost them an awful lot of money in lawyers' fees to claim, and their shareholders might feel that a minus infinity percent rate of return didn't make it a good investement. > Then there is the case of "assignment of copyright" which I understand > to mean that where my name would normally be added at the top of the > piece of work is replaced with the RedHat and no public record within > that work is retained that I was originally the copyright holder. Your name is down on the patch that you send to the mailing lists, on the archives of those mailing lists, on the changelog entry, in the CVS log message, and (if you're contributing a whole file, rather than just a small patch to an existing one) at the top of the file. > The only reason to > get a signed agreement is to enable the option of going to a court of > law for judgment in the future. That's not true. There are many other, non-paranoid reasons for their wanting a signed agreement, and the reason is: IF someone else rips off the cygwin code and tries to distribute it without sources, Redhat can only sue them for breaching the GPL if Redhat is the copyright holder. You should read the GPL FAQ: although it applies specifically to the FSF, the reasoning and motivation behind the need for assignments is the same. http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today....