From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1234 invoked by alias); 15 Aug 2006 09:24:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 28055 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Aug 2006 09:08:56 -0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <44E18F20.3040700@netbauds.net> Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 09:24:00 -0000 From: Darryl Miles User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-GB; rv:1.8.0.5) Gecko/20060727 SeaMonkey/1.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin-licensing@cygwin.com Subject: Re: Rsync over ssh (pulling from Cygwin to Linux) stalls.. References: <006a01c6bfc5$29fb85d0$a501a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> <44E0B1D9.8020900@netbauds.net> <20060814180137.GA26059@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> In-Reply-To: <20060814180137.GA26059@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/msg00005.txt.bz2 Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 06:24:41PM +0100, Darryl Miles wrote: >> 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. > > Funny you should use those words. > > Again, I'll say that it is vanishingly unlikely that you will be talking > to a Red Hat lawyer so if you can't sign the Cygwin license agreement, > you won't be getting code into Cygwin. There is no way to circumvent > this requirement. Yes I use those words just because I understand RHs position. There is nothing to stop me publically maintaining a patch and patched version of CYGWIN and source tree to build it as GPLed work. There is little stopping someone coming along who will sign the agreement from looking at my patch, getting the general idea and implementing their own version of a similar thing and for that work to be submitted. Either way I have my fix and cygwin might have a usable submission. You could also think of the situation differently, if RedHat were not around (went bankrupt, ha ha, LOL). Then someone took over or setup a cygwin website the first thing that would go would be the copyright assignment agreement, since its a superfluous piece of documentation that only served RedHat. I have no idea how the law deals with non-existant copyright holders, people dying or companies going bankrupt. The people issue maybe dealt with as straightforward inheritance. But the incorporated company. This maybe another reason why the FSF is a better bet, yes it is still possible for a not-for-profit organization to go bankrupt but I'd hope less likely and probably more amenable to accept donations from business to restructure it should it get into difficulties (like I believe it to have in the past). Darryl