From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15927 invoked by alias); 14 Aug 2006 17:45:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 15920 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Aug 2006 17:45:22 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from main.gmane.org (HELO ciao.gmane.org) (80.91.229.2) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 14 Aug 2006 18:45:20 +0100 Received: from root by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1GCgUn-0004ak-UQ for cygwin-talk@cygwin.com; Mon, 14 Aug 2006 19:45:02 +0200 Received: from 65.207.213.226 ([65.207.213.226]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 14 Aug 2006 19:45:01 +0200 Received: from mwoehlke by 65.207.213.226 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 14 Aug 2006 19:45:01 +0200 To: cygwin-talk@cygwin.com From: mwoehlke Subject: Re: Rsync over ssh (pulling from Cygwin to Linux) stalls.. Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 17:45:00 -0000 Message-ID: References: <006401c6bfc0$da40e570$a501a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.5) Gecko/20060719 Thunderbird/1.5.0.5 Mnenhy/0.7.4.0 In-Reply-To: <006401c6bfc0$da40e570$a501a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> X-IsSubscribed: yes 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/msg00154.txt.bz2 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