From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15099 invoked by alias); 17 Aug 2006 16:31:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 15090 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Aug 2006 16:31:49 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from alageremail1.agere.com (HELO alageremail1.agere.com) (192.19.193.106) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:31:41 +0000 Received: from alerelay.agere.com (alerelay.agere.com [135.14.190.33]) by alageremail1.agere.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k7HGVcPE011274 for ; Thu, 17 Aug 2006 12:31:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from PAUMAILF01.ags.agere.com (paumailf01.agere.com [135.14.186.245]) by alerelay.agere.com (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id k7HGVcl11705 for ; Thu, 17 Aug 2006 12:31:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from paumailu03.ags.agere.com ([135.14.190.64]) by PAUMAILF01.ags.agere.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 17 Aug 2006 12:31:38 -0400 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Re: Rsync over ssh (pulling from Cygwin to Linux) stalls.. Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:31:00 -0000 Message-ID: <4C89134832705D4D85A6CD2EBF38AE0F6839DF@PAUMAILU03.ags.agere.com> In-Reply-To: From: "Williams, Gerald S \(Jerry\)" To: Mailing-List: contact cygwin-talk-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-talk-owner@cygwin.com Reply-To: The Cygwin-Talk Maiming List X-SW-Source: 2006-q3/txt/msg00241.txt.bz2 mwoehlke wrote: > Christopher Faylor wrote: >> mwoehlke wrote: >>> Ok, *that* actually makes sense. However, that /should/ just mean >>> that they need proof (from whoever would sign an assignment) that >>> the code is public domain, which means it could still *be* public >>> domain, with all the protections (such as they are) that implies. >>=20 >> How would such a form differ from what is currently being used? >=20 > Assuming you can make a trivial change that results in a derivative, > and therefore copyrightable work, I'd say the second clause would be > different, i.e. would state that as a condition of the assignment, > permission for other use (in particular, of future revisions to the > original "work") is automatically granted without written notice. In > fact, I'm not thrilled with the written notice thing, either. :-) Whatever the reason, it interferes with my ability to contribute code to Cygwin even if I can package it separately, since my company will not sign the assignment. They will, however, allow me to release code into the public domain. Besides providing a possible avenue for contributing code, this got me thinking about the other public domain projects out there. People ought to be able to freely use their code. That's the whole point of releasing them into the public domain. And perhaps if open source proponents such as RedHat found a way to accept public domain code, others in my situation would start up more public domain projects. For the greater good and all that. I have asked in the past if a letter confirming that the code has been put into the public domain is sufficient, but apparently it is not. I realize that the assignment gives you someone to hold responsible if there are ownership issues, and covers patents and such, which are not addressed automatically by placing the code in the public domain. The assignment has been carefully thought out by someone, even though it's seemingly not amenable to accepting public domain code. But it is what it is. I'm not trying to start an accusatory thread--I just think it's just a bit of a shame that PD code is excluded. > I'm also looking to general cases (part of the reason I care > is because when/if I ever have anything I want to contribute to > Cygwin, I will have the same concerns, and possibly for a much > larger contribution). Yes, I guess we should have changed the Subject line somewhere along the way... :-) gsw