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

["Dave Korn" <dave dot korn at artimi dot com>]

On 14 August 2006 18:25, Darryl Miles wrote:

> Dave Korn wrote:
>> On 14 August 2006 18:08, Darryl Miles wrote:
>> 
>>   TITTLL, /please/.  I am sending a reply there which (I think) addresses
>> most of your points. 
>> 
>>> mwoehlke wrote:
>> 
>>>> IANALTYMSIEIAATS...
>> 
>>> IANAL also.
>> 
>>   This is the cygwin mailing list.  A discussion of legal matters between
>> two people - who both /admit/ they have no authoritative understanding of
>> what they're talking about - is off-topic.  Not to mention most likely
>> uninformative and unproductive.
> 
> Yes sorry for that, I wasn't actually aware there was a license list
> until just pointed out.  I am just subscribing now.
> 
> But in response to your quip, it also part of the problem, I'm not going
> to appoint legal council address this issue, its just not that important
> to me.  So it has to be sorted out in a manner that appeases my current
> understanding, which in this case means don't sign anything that might
> gives up any rights I currently have or anything I do not understand!
> 
> End of discussion here, moved to the other list now...

  In fact, that post came to "the other list" (which is now 'here') rather
than the main list anyway.

  Well, to get started, I already posted a reply to your earlier post:
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-licensing/2006-q3/msg00000.html

  Also, a couple of selected points from your follow-up:

> The beef is that I am forced to signed a legally binding agreement with 
> a profit generating organization in order to contribute code for free. 

  Why is this a problem?  It doesn't cost you anything except maybe 70p for
postage to the USA.

> Another concern (as citizen of the UK) is that from what I perceive of 
> US law, is that those with the most money end up winning fringe civil 
> court cases.  

  Nothing in the contract says you owe them money for anything.  Therefore if
they attempt to enforce it in court, the most they could claim is the $0 that
you owe them.  This would cost them an awful lot of money in lawyers' fees to
claim, and their shareholders might feel that a minus infinity percent rate of
return didn't make it a good investement.

> Then there is the case of "assignment of copyright" which I understand 
> to mean that where my name would normally be added at the top of the 
> piece of work is replaced with the RedHat and no public record within 
> that work is retained that I was originally the copyright holder.

  Your name is down on the patch that you send to the mailing lists, on the
archives of those mailing lists, on the changelog entry, in the CVS log
message, and (if you're contributing a whole file, rather than just a small
patch to an existing one) at the top of the file.

>  The only reason to 
> get a signed agreement is to enable the option of going to a court of 
> law for judgment in the future. 

  That's not true.  There are many other, non-paranoid reasons for their
wanting a signed agreement, and the reason is:

  IF someone else rips off the cygwin code and tries to distribute it without
sources, Redhat can only sue them for breaching the GPL if Redhat is the
copyright holder.

  You should read the GPL FAQ: although it applies specifically to the FSF,
the reasoning and motivation behind the need for assignments is the same.

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html



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