From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24820 invoked by alias); 14 Aug 2006 19:48:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 24812 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Aug 2006 19:48:41 -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 20:48:37 +0100 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1GCiQ4-0008MR-2n for cygwin-talk@cygwin.com; Mon, 14 Aug 2006 21:48:16 +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 21:48:16 +0200 Received: from mwoehlke by 65.207.213.226 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 14 Aug 2006 21:48:16 +0200 To: cygwin-talk@cygwin.com From: mwoehlke Subject: Re: Rsync over ssh (pulling from Cygwin to Linux) stalls.. Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 19:48:00 -0000 Message-ID: References: <007201c6bfcc$29939810$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: <007201c6bfcc$29939810$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/msg00158.txt.bz2 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