Re: Rsync over ssh (pulling from Cygwin to Linux) stalls..

Re: Rsync over ssh (pulling from Cygwin to Linux) stalls..

[mwoehlke]

Dave Korn wrote:
> On 14 August 2006 17:04, mwoehlke wrote:
> 
>   It's time we took this discussion to the licensing list, so if anyone wants
> to carry it on please take note of the "Reply-To" header that I have set.
...
> [ ... rest of message safely ignored - TITTLL! ... ]

Ack, gmane doesn't carry that. For now, at least, I'm taking your other 
suggestion and TITTTLing. Besides which I think my comment is more -talk 
than -licensing :-).

>> Darryl Miles wrote:
>>> I do have questions, they may seem daft, but this issue is legal thing
>>> so the finer points are important:
>>> [snip]
>>> I'd be happy to put the bugfixes for this particular problem in the
>>> public domain, thus confirming my original legal entitlement to
>>> copyright and waivering that right.  Which would may waiver anyone elses
>>> future rights to copyright as well.  This would seem a compatible
>>> solution which would allow contributions without needing to enter into a
>>> copyright assignment agreement.  Since my name wont be listed anywhere
>>> on the published work (since as I read the agreement it would be
>>> replaced by RedHats anyway) I might as well make the contribution public
>>> domain.
>> IANALTYMSIEIAATS...
>> My understanding is that if you place it in Public Domain, then anyone
>> can do anything with it and no one can stop this. IOW RedHat would be
>> safe because no one can prevent them from using Public Domain material
>> in any manner or fashion. 
> 
>   That's not what "safe" means.  If the program is in the public domain,
> rather than RH having the copyright assigned to them, then anyone could take
> it, make a proprietary version and distribute it without the sources, and RH
> would not be in a legal position to enforce the GPL on it because they would
> not be the copyright holder.

And the problem with this would be what, exactly? "Safe" in that no one 
can take legal action against RH because of their use of it.

-- 
Matthew
"We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad... You must be, or you wouldn't 
have come here." -- The Cheshire Cat

Re: Rsync over ssh (pulling from Cygwin to Linux) stalls..

[mwoehlke]

mwoehlke wrote:
> Dave Korn wrote:
>> On 14 August 2006 17:04, mwoehlke wrote:
>>   It's time we took this discussion to the licensing list, so if 
>> anyone wants
>> to carry it on please take note of the "Reply-To" header that I have set.
> ...
>> [ ... rest of message safely ignored - TITTLL! ... ]
> 
> Ack, gmane doesn't carry that. For now, at least, I'm taking your other 
> suggestion and TITTTLing. Besides which I think my comment is more -talk 
> than -licensing :-).

Ack, misread that (don't think I've seem TITT*L*L before to notice the 
distinction, and it *is* a little hard to see without looking close :-)).

Plus, it's not on the http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#OLOCA! ;-)

-- 
Matthew
"We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad... You must be, or you wouldn't 
have come here." -- The Cheshire Cat

RE: Rsync over ssh (pulling from Cygwin to Linux) stalls..

[Dave Korn]

On 14 August 2006 18:54, mwoehlke wrote:

> mwoehlke wrote:
>> Dave Korn wrote:
>>> On 14 August 2006 17:04, mwoehlke wrote:
>>>   It's time we took this discussion to the licensing list, so if
>>> anyone wants
>>> to carry it on please take note of the "Reply-To" header that I have set.
>>> ... [ ... rest of message safely ignored - TITTLL! ... ]
>> 
>> Ack, gmane doesn't carry that. For now, at least, I'm taking your other
>> suggestion and TITTTLing. Besides which I think my comment is more -talk
>> than -licensing :-).
> 
> Ack, misread that (don't think I've seem TITT*L*L before to notice the
> distinction, and it *is* a little hard to see without looking close :-)).

  Heh.  Now you're wondering: did I /mean/ for that to happen?
 
> Plus, it's not on the http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#OLOCA! ;-)

  Perhaps we should add a wildcard entry: TITT?L.

    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

RE: Rsync over ssh (pulling from Cygwin to Linux) stalls..

[Dave Korn]

On 14 August 2006 18:41, mwoehlke wrote:

> Dave Korn wrote:
>> On 14 August 2006 17:04, mwoehlke wrote:

>>> My understanding is that if you place it in Public Domain, then anyone
>>> can do anything with it and no one can stop this. IOW RedHat would be
>>> safe because no one can prevent them from using Public Domain material
>>> in any manner or fashion.
>> 
>>   That's not what "safe" means.  If the program is in the public domain,
>> rather than RH having the copyright assigned to them, then anyone could
>> take it, make a proprietary version and distribute it without the sources,
>> and RH would not be in a legal position to enforce the GPL on it because
>> they would not be the copyright holder.
> 
> And the problem with this would be what, exactly? "Safe" in that no one
> can take legal action against RH because of their use of it.

  No, redhat is "safe" in /that/ sense automatically, because the code is GPLd
and so they and everyone else in the world can do what they like with it, and
nobody can stop them.  The meaning of "safe" for redhat would be "safe from
anyone stealing it for proprietary use", because the code would not be safe
against that unless someone who can afford lawyers - such as RH - holds the
copyright.

  Please, read the rationale at:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html

- although this is the FSF's site, the same argument applies to RH's reasons
for wanting copyright assigned.  RH are entirely genuine about the GPL: it's
the foundation of their business, and it is the GPL that guarantees they can
conduct that business and that nobody can try and prevent them distributing
open-source software.


    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

Re: Rsync over ssh (pulling from Cygwin to Linux) stalls..

[mwoehlke]

Dave Korn wrote:
> On 14 August 2006 18:41, mwoehlke wrote:
> 
>> Dave Korn wrote:
>>> On 14 August 2006 17:04, mwoehlke wrote:
> 
>>>> My understanding is that if you place it in Public Domain, then anyone
>>>> can do anything with it and no one can stop this. IOW RedHat would be
>>>> safe because no one can prevent them from using Public Domain material
>>>> in any manner or fashion.
>>>   That's not what "safe" means.  If the program is in the public domain,
>>> rather than RH having the copyright assigned to them, then anyone could
>>> take it, make a proprietary version and distribute it without the sources,
>>> and RH would not be in a legal position to enforce the GPL on it because
>>> they would not be the copyright holder.
>> And the problem with this would be what, exactly? "Safe" in that no one
>> can take legal action against RH because of their use of it.
> 
>   No, redhat is "safe" in /that/ sense automatically, because the code is GPLd
> and so they and everyone else in the world can do what they like with it, and
> nobody can stop them.  The meaning of "safe" for redhat would be "safe from
> anyone stealing it for proprietary use", because the code would not be safe
> against that unless someone who can afford lawyers - such as RH - holds the
> copyright.

...I think this is what Daryl is taking issue with: you are essentially 
*forcing* GPL onto someone. Not everyone agrees with that philosophy (in 
my case, it depends on my mood :-)).

-- 
Matthew
"We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad... You must be, or you wouldn't 
have come here." -- The Cheshire Cat

RE: Rsync over ssh (pulling from Cygwin to Linux) stalls..

[Dave Korn]

On 14 August 2006 20:48, mwoehlke wrote:

> Dave Korn wrote:
>> On 14 August 2006 18:41, mwoehlke wrote:
>> 
>>> Dave Korn wrote:
>>>> On 14 August 2006 17:04, mwoehlke wrote:
>> 
>>>>> My understanding is that if you place it in Public Domain, then anyone
>>>>> can do anything with it and no one can stop this. IOW RedHat would be
>>>>> safe because no one can prevent them from using Public Domain material
>>>>> in any manner or fashion.
>>>>   That's not what "safe" means.  If the program is in the public domain,
>>>> rather than RH having the copyright assigned to them, then anyone could
>>>> take it, make a proprietary version and distribute it without the
>>>> sources, and RH would not be in a legal position to enforce the GPL on
>>>> it because they would not be the copyright holder.
>>> And the problem with this would be what, exactly? "Safe" in that no one
>>> can take legal action against RH because of their use of it.
>> 
>>   No, redhat is "safe" in /that/ sense automatically, because the code is
>> GPLd and so they and everyone else in the world can do what they like with
>> it, and nobody can stop them.  The meaning of "safe" for redhat would be
>> "safe from anyone stealing it for proprietary use", because the code would
>> not be safe against that unless someone who can afford lawyers - such as
>> RH - holds the copyright.
> 
> ...I think this is what Daryl is taking issue with: you are essentially
> *forcing* GPL onto someone. Not everyone agrees with that philosophy (in
> my case, it depends on my mood :-)).


  It's not forced onto anyone.

  There is a fair exchange offered, and it is up to every individual whether
or not to take advantage of it.

  The fair exchange is that, in order to become the beneficiary of millions of
person-hours worth of work for the total fiscal cost of precisely $0.00, you
are in exchange required to relinquish any rights you may have otherwise
reserved to take courses of action that would allow you to attempt to - sorry,
but I can't find a better way to express it than a metaphor - enclose the
common land, seize a part of the commons for your own personal benefit, take
something which is joint property of others and annex it to your own private
property.

  This is an entirely /voluntary/ relinquishment of your rights.  It is not
*forced* on anyone.  If you do not want it, you are free to not make use of
the GPL'd software.  It's your choice.  It is, however, entirely *concordant*
with notions of property rights and contract law.


    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

Re: Rsync over ssh (pulling from Cygwin to Linux) stalls..

[mwoehlke]

Dave Korn wrote:
> On 14 August 2006 20:48, mwoehlke wrote:
>> Dave Korn wrote:
>>> On 14 August 2006 18:41, mwoehlke wrote:
>>>> Dave Korn wrote:
>>>>> On 14 August 2006 17:04, mwoehlke wrote:
>>>>>> My understanding is that if you place it in Public Domain, then anyone
>>>>>> can do anything with it and no one can stop this. IOW RedHat would be
>>>>>> safe because no one can prevent them from using Public Domain material
>>>>>> in any manner or fashion.
>>>>>   That's not what "safe" means.  If the program is in the public domain,
>>>>> rather than RH having the copyright assigned to them, then anyone could
>>>>> take it, make a proprietary version and distribute it without the
>>>>> sources, and RH would not be in a legal position to enforce the GPL on
>>>>> it because they would not be the copyright holder.
>>>> And the problem with this would be what, exactly? "Safe" in that no one
>>>> can take legal action against RH because of their use of it.
>>>   No, redhat is "safe" in /that/ sense automatically, because the code is
>>> GPLd and so they and everyone else in the world can do what they like with
>>> it, and nobody can stop them.  The meaning of "safe" for redhat would be
>>> "safe from anyone stealing it for proprietary use", because the code would
>>> not be safe against that unless someone who can afford lawyers - such as
>>> RH - holds the copyright.
>> ...I think this is what Daryl is taking issue with: you are essentially
>> *forcing* GPL onto someone. Not everyone agrees with that philosophy (in
>> my case, it depends on my mood :-)).
> 
>   It's not forced onto anyone.

Sure it is. "Use GPL, or you can't contribute to this software". It's 
very intentional coercion, and in all honesty the FSF has good reasons 
to do it, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a very high-handed 
approach.

On further research, the FSF has already addressed this question:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html

According to that, Daryl has every right to make his code public domain, 
or for that matter release it under any other GPL-compatible license. 
Checking http://cygwin.com/licensing.html, I see where that could be a 
problem (because RH offers a "commercial" license) for another OSS 
license, but that should not apply to public domain work for exactly the 
reasons *you* pointed out.

So... are we just disagreeing over "safe", or are you actually telling 
me that RH (and thus Cygwin) would *refuse* to incorporate public domain 
code?

The irony of course is that the availability of a commercial license 
makes it look like Daryl's fears are in fact very well founded. :-)

-- 
Matthew
Only Joe suffers from schizophrenia. The rest of us enjoy it.

RE: Re: Rsync over ssh (pulling from Cygwin to Linux) stalls..

[Williams, Gerald S (Jerry)]

mwoehlke wrote:
> So... are we just disagreeing over "safe", or are you
> actually telling me that RH (and thus Cygwin) would
> *refuse* to incorporate public domain code?

In fact that is the case, and it is a shame.

In RH's defense, there is some legal vagueness around
public domain code (and a few strange laws that add to
the confusion by trying to accommodate shareware and
such). But one would think that as a huge proponent of
open source development, RH lawyers would have figured
it out by now.

I suspect that anyone could theoretically take public
domain code and add their copyright to it (therefore
it could be submitted to RH), but IANAL, and I won't
be the first to try it. (Not that I could if I wanted
to--my company lawyers won't sign the assignment.) Of
course, this assumes that RH's sole purpose is making
sure they can legitimately use the code--if their real
purpose is making sure nobody else can use it (except
under GPL), then this wouldn't serve their purposes.

> The irony of course is that the availability of a
> commercial license makes it look like Daryl's fears
> are in fact very well founded. :-)

I don't care if they want to make money, but their
current policy actually prevents code from being
released into the public domain. Even if their real
motivation is not monetary, that is a consequence
that I'd rather avoid.

gsw

Re: Re: Rsync over ssh (pulling from Cygwin to Linux) stalls..

[Christopher Faylor]

On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 09:22:52AM -0400, Williams, Gerald S (Jerry) wrote:
>mwoehlke wrote:
>>So...  are we just disagreeing over "safe", or are you actually telling
>>me that RH (and thus Cygwin) would *refuse* to incorporate public
>>domain code?
>
>In fact that is the case, and it is a shame.
>
>In RH's defense, there is some legal vagueness around public domain
>code (and a few strange laws that add to the confusion by trying to
>accommodate shareware and such).  But one would think that as a huge
>proponent of open source development, RH lawyers would have figured it
>out by now.

What Red Hat lawyers (and I, the IANAL, for that matter) have figured
out is that if someone sticks a "Public Domain" tag on a piece of
software, you still have to go through due diligence to find out if the
software is actually encumbered or not since anyone with a text editor
can put anything they like in a file.  That would mean getting a release
from the person's company.

So, I don't see how public domain buys you much.

Oddly enough the FSF has the same requirements.

>>The irony of course is that the availability of a commercial license
>>makes it look like Daryl's fears are in fact very well founded.  :-)
>
>I don't care if they want to make money, but their current policy
>actually prevents code from being released into the public domain.
>Even if their real motivation is not monetary, that is a consequence
>that I'd rather avoid.

Again, Red Hat isn't doing anything different than the FSF.

Red Hat does not have any interest in the "public domain".  Where Cygwin
is concerned, they need to be absolutely certain that they either own
the code or that the code's license is conformant with their needs.

cgf

Re: Rsync over ssh (pulling from Cygwin to Linux) stalls..

[mwoehlke]

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 09:22:52AM -0400, Williams, Gerald S (Jerry) wrote:
>> mwoehlke wrote:
>>> So...  are we just disagreeing over "safe", or are you actually telling
>>> me that RH (and thus Cygwin) would *refuse* to incorporate public
>>> domain code?
>> In fact that is the case, and it is a shame.
>>
>> In RH's defense, there is some legal vagueness around public domain
>> code (and a few strange laws that add to the confusion by trying to
>> accommodate shareware and such).  But one would think that as a huge
>> proponent of open source development, RH lawyers would have figured it
>> out by now.
> 
> What Red Hat lawyers (and I, the IANAL, for that matter) have figured
> out is that if someone sticks a "Public Domain" tag on a piece of
> software, you still have to go through due diligence to find out if the
> software is actually encumbered or not since anyone with a text editor
> can put anything they like in a file.  That would mean getting a release
> from the person's company.

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.

At any rate, I am less confused now; thanks. :-)

> So, I don't see how public domain buys you much.
> 
> Oddly enough the FSF has the same requirements.
> 
>>> The irony of course is that the availability of a commercial license
>>> makes it look like Daryl's fears are in fact very well founded.  :-)
>> I don't care if they want to make money, but their current policy
>> actually prevents code from being released into the public domain.
>> Even if their real motivation is not monetary, that is a consequence
>> that I'd rather avoid.
> 
> Again, Red Hat isn't doing anything different than the FSF.

...Except offering commercial, proprietary licenses. :-) I'm sorry, but 
it still sounds to me like Daryl is right; signing an assignment to RH 
is giving them carte blanche to do whatever they want with the code. 
You're right of course that assigning to FSF is technically the same 
thing, except that, as Daryl pointed out, FSF has a reputation for 
"honesty", whereas RH outright tells you they *will* sell your code as 
proprietary.

That said, the same applies to any permissive license (which Daryl 
indicated he is OK with); the difference being that the code (at least 
in its original form) is then available under that permissive license 
and not *only* GPL.

The upshot of which is that you can't contribute unless you're willing 
to let RH do whatever they want with your code. If you're willing to let 
ANYONE do anything they want with your code (i.e. a permissive license 
or public domain), then I still think there is a problem if RH won't 
accept such code (with the acknowledgment that CGF is correct about due 
diligence; the licensing has to be sound). Otherwise, once RH releases a 
GPL'd instance of your code, it is GPL'd forever and there is nothing 
wrong with the assignment (except the original statement; no matter what 
you have to give RH permission to do anything).

> Red Hat does not have any interest in the "public domain".  Where Cygwin
> is concerned, they need to be absolutely certain that they either own
> the code or that the code's license is conformant with their needs.

That would imply that any permissive, GPL-compatible, non-copyleft 
license would suffice. So, is there precedent for accepting code that 
has been placed under such a license?

-- 
Matthew
vIMprove your life! Now on version 7!

Re: Rsync over ssh (pulling from Cygwin to Linux) stalls..

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Aug 16 10:52, mwoehlke wrote:
> [...lots and lots of stuff...]

Oh well, another non-problem beaten to death.  I'm not surprised
nobody is seeing any Hippo around here for a while...


Corinna

Re: Rsync over ssh (pulling from Cygwin to Linux) stalls..

[Christopher Faylor]

On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 10:52:49AM -0500, mwoehlke wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 09:22:52AM -0400, Williams, Gerald S (Jerry) wrote:
>>>mwoehlke wrote:
>>>>So...  are we just disagreeing over "safe", or are you actually telling
>>>>me that RH (and thus Cygwin) would *refuse* to incorporate public
>>>>domain code?
>>>In fact that is the case, and it is a shame.
>>>
>>>In RH's defense, there is some legal vagueness around public domain
>>>code (and a few strange laws that add to the confusion by trying to
>>>accommodate shareware and such).  But one would think that as a huge
>>>proponent of open source development, RH lawyers would have figured it
>>>out by now.
>>
>>What Red Hat lawyers (and I, the IANAL, for that matter) have figured
>>out is that if someone sticks a "Public Domain" tag on a piece of
>>software, you still have to go through due diligence to find out if the
>>software is actually encumbered or not since anyone with a text editor
>>can put anything they like in a file.  That would mean getting a release
>>from the person's company.
>
>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.

How would such a form differ from what is currently being used?

>At any rate, I am less confused now; thanks. :-)

I've explained this many times.  At least one in this list.  I think the
last time even resulted in a "zinger" from the "you're off-topic" bot.

>>So, I don't see how public domain buys you much.
>>
>>Oddly enough the FSF has the same requirements.
>>
>>>>The irony of course is that the availability of a commercial license
>>>>makes it look like Daryl's fears are in fact very well founded.  :-)
>>>I don't care if they want to make money, but their current policy
>>>actually prevents code from being released into the public domain.
>>>Even if their real motivation is not monetary, that is a consequence
>>>that I'd rather avoid.
>>
>>Again, Red Hat isn't doing anything different than the FSF.
>
>...Except offering commercial, proprietary licenses. :-) I'm sorry, but 
>it still sounds to me like Daryl is right; signing an assignment to RH 
>is giving them carte blanche to do whatever they want with the code. 

Of course it is.  That's exactly what they're doing.  That's the whole
point of the assignment.

Daryl's contribution wasn't going to cure cancer or cause the lame to
walk.  It was going to fix a problem in Cygwin which probably hadn't
even been noticed by Red Hat customers.

And, of course, the road that Daryl is currently walking seems to require
LOTS of help from people in the cygwin mailing lists.  Were they going to
be cited in his oft-promised-but-still-missing patch?  Should they all feel
hurt because Red Hat would be making money from their efforts, too?

I could see some consternation if major new functionality was being
offered but that is not the case here.  We're talking about a bug fix
which would benefit a lot of people.  Theorizing that Red Hat will benefit
in some tangible way from this kind of patch is an assumption based on
almost no facts.

>The upshot of which is that you can't contribute unless you're willing 
>to let RH do whatever they want with your code. If you're willing to let 
>ANYONE do anything they want with your code (i.e. a permissive license 
>or public domain), then I still think there is a problem if RH won't 
>accept such code (with the acknowledgment that CGF is correct about due 
>diligence; the licensing has to be sound). Otherwise, once RH releases a 
>GPL'd instance of your code, it is GPL'd forever and there is nothing 
>wrong with the assignment (except the original statement; no matter what 
>you have to give RH permission to do anything).

IANAL, but, IMO, "Your code" in this case is not actually "your code".
You're talking about code which modifies Cygwin.  To make your change
you have to study Cygwin's source code.  When you do that, you are
almost guaranteed that anything you do will be GPLed since you have
basically "tainted" yourself with the GPL.

>>Red Hat does not have any interest in the "public domain".  Where Cygwin
>>is concerned, they need to be absolutely certain that they either own
>>the code or that the code's license is conformant with their needs.
>
>That would imply that any permissive, GPL-compatible, non-copyleft 
>license would suffice. So, is there precedent for accepting code that 
>has been placed under such a license?

I'll leave that as an exercise for you to figure out yourself.  Neither
Corinna nor I have a lot of patience for the endless discussions of
IANALs who think they have new points to make on this ancient subject.

The situation with Cygwin's license assignment is what it is.  Corinna
can't change it and I can't change it.  If you don't like it, then don't
contribute but please don't spend a lot of time complaining about how
awful it is because you are just making noises at people who have no
power to effect change.

cgf

Re: Rsync over ssh (pulling from Cygwin to Linux) stalls..

[mwoehlke]

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 10:52:49AM -0500, mwoehlke wrote:
>> Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 09:22:52AM -0400, Williams, Gerald S (Jerry) wrote:
>>>> mwoehlke wrote:
>>>>> So...  are we just disagreeing over "safe", or are you actually telling
>>>>> me that RH (and thus Cygwin) would *refuse* to incorporate public
>>>>> domain code?
>>>> In fact that is the case, and it is a shame.
>>>>
>>>> In RH's defense, there is some legal vagueness around public domain
>>>> code (and a few strange laws that add to the confusion by trying to
>>>> accommodate shareware and such).  But one would think that as a huge
>>>> proponent of open source development, RH lawyers would have figured it
>>>> out by now.
>>> What Red Hat lawyers (and I, the IANAL, for that matter) have figured
>>> out is that if someone sticks a "Public Domain" tag on a piece of
>>> software, you still have to go through due diligence to find out if the
>>> software is actually encumbered or not since anyone with a text editor
>>> can put anything they like in a file.  That would mean getting a release
>> >from the person's company.
>>
>> 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.
> 
> How would such a form differ from what is currently being used?

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. :-)

>> At any rate, I am less confused now; thanks. :-)
> 
> I've explained this many times.  At least one in this list.  I think the
> last time even resulted in a "zinger" from the "you're off-topic" bot.

Well, until now, I was still confused. Now I am not, and I am still 
grateful for that, even if you don't want credit. :-)

>>> So, I don't see how public domain buys you much.
>>>
>>> Oddly enough the FSF has the same requirements.
>>>
>>>>> The irony of course is that the availability of a commercial license
>>>>> makes it look like Daryl's fears are in fact very well founded.  :-)
>>>> I don't care if they want to make money, but their current policy
>>>> actually prevents code from being released into the public domain.
>>>> Even if their real motivation is not monetary, that is a consequence
>>>> that I'd rather avoid.
>>> Again, Red Hat isn't doing anything different than the FSF.
>> ...Except offering commercial, proprietary licenses. :-) I'm sorry, but 
>> it still sounds to me like Daryl is right; signing an assignment to RH 
>> is giving them carte blanche to do whatever they want with the code. 
> 
> Of course it is.  That's exactly what they're doing.  That's the whole
> point of the assignment.
> 
> Daryl's contribution wasn't going to cure cancer or cause the lame to
> walk.  It was going to fix a problem in Cygwin which probably hadn't
> even been noticed by Red Hat customers.
> 
> And, of course, the road that Daryl is currently walking seems to require
> LOTS of help from people in the cygwin mailing lists.  Were they going to
> be cited in his oft-promised-but-still-missing patch?  Should they all feel
> hurt because Red Hat would be making money from their efforts, too?
> 
> I could see some consternation if major new functionality was being
> offered but that is not the case here.  We're talking about a bug fix
> which would benefit a lot of people.  Theorizing that Red Hat will benefit
> in some tangible way from this kind of patch is an assumption based on
> almost no facts.

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).

I agree with you as far as Daryl's case; there should be a solution here 
that makes him happy, especially as he implied he is OK with permissive, 
non-copyleft licensing.

>> The upshot of which is that you can't contribute unless you're willing 
>> to let RH do whatever they want with your code. If you're willing to let 
>> ANYONE do anything they want with your code (i.e. a permissive license 
>> or public domain), then I still think there is a problem if RH won't 
>> accept such code (with the acknowledgment that CGF is correct about due 
>> diligence; the licensing has to be sound). Otherwise, once RH releases a 
>> GPL'd instance of your code, it is GPL'd forever and there is nothing 
>> wrong with the assignment (except the original statement; no matter what 
>> you have to give RH permission to do anything).
> 
> IANAL, but, IMO, "Your code" in this case is not actually "your code".
> You're talking about code which modifies Cygwin.  To make your change
> you have to study Cygwin's source code.  When you do that, you are
> almost guaranteed that anything you do will be GPLed since you have
> basically "tainted" yourself with the GPL.
> 
>>> Red Hat does not have any interest in the "public domain".  Where Cygwin
>>> is concerned, they need to be absolutely certain that they either own
>>> the code or that the code's license is conformant with their needs.
>> That would imply that any permissive, GPL-compatible, non-copyleft 
>> license would suffice. So, is there precedent for accepting code that 
>> has been placed under such a license?
> 
> I'll leave that as an exercise for you to figure out yourself.  Neither
> Corinna nor I have a lot of patience for the endless discussions of
> IANALs who think they have new points to make on this ancient subject.
> 
> The situation with Cygwin's license assignment is what it is.  Corinna
> can't change it and I can't change it.  If you don't like it, then don't
> contribute but please don't spend a lot of time complaining about how
> awful it is because you are just making noises at people who have no
> power to effect change.

...Just trying to clarify my understanding of how things work; an 
endeavor in which I have now (mostly) succeeded.

May the Hippo now guard this thread, that it may die in peace. :-)

-- 
Matthew
vIMprove your life! Now on version 7!

RE: Re: Rsync over ssh (pulling from Cygwin to Linux) stalls..

[Williams, Gerald S (Jerry)]

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.
>> 
>> How would such a form differ from what is currently being used?
> 
> 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

Re: Rsync over ssh (pulling from Cygwin to Linux) stalls..

[mwoehlke]

Williams, Gerald S (Jerry) wrote:
> 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.
>>> How would such a form differ from what is currently being used?
>> 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.

FWIW, my impression is still that *you* could PD your code, and then 
someone else who *can* sign an assignment can come along, make a trivial 
change (like adding a comment, thus qualifying it as a "derivative work" 
that can be copyrighted), and then submit it. Which sounds ridiculous, 
but makes perverted sense in light of CGF's comment.

-- 
Matthew
Websites such as ... Wikipedia ... are reputed to occupy users for 
periods in excess of 5 hours. -- Wikipedia article on Internet Addiction