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

[mwoehlke <mwoehlke@tibco.com>]

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