From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25109 invoked by alias); 20 Oct 2005 22:43:08 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 12577 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Oct 2005 22:23:29 -0000 Message-ID: <435818DF.421CED84@dessent.net> Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 22:43:00 -0000 From: Brian Dessent Organization: My own little world... X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en,en-US MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin-licensing@cygwin.com Subject: Re: "Unusual" contribution licensing problems References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SW-Source: 2005-q4/txt/msg00001.txt.bz2 =C9rsek L=E1szl=F3 wrote: > after grepping the cygwin mailing list and my up-to-date cygwin > installation for "nftw" and "fts_open", I thought that it could make sense > (and fun) to implement nftw(). Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) the whole discussion is moot because these functions were added to Cygwin several months ago by Corinna: . > Let me list some facts and guesses: As for the rest of the question, I'm not a lawyer so I'll shut up. But I do believe that one way or another, whether you are assigning the copyright to Redhat, or abandoning all copyrights, you still need something signed by both you and your company on file with Redhat before they can accept patches. Brian