This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: --enable-runtime-pseudo-reloc support in cygwin, take 3.

egor duda wrote:

CW> OTOH, if you, Egor Duda, do NOT assign ownership to Red Hat, but instead CW> release the code as public domain FIRST, then mingw is free to take it.

That's what i was meaning.

CW> Also, Red Hat is free to take it as well -- but they do not have CW> "ownership" of the code; they simply are using it as they would any CW> other public domain code. Which means Red Hat has the right to CW> re-release it under their proprietary cygwin license and under the GPL.
And I see that your most recent version was explicitly released into the public domain. As I understand it, this means that both cygwin and mingw can take it -- and cygwin is even free to modify the code slightly (or not!) and then claim the result as their very very own and stamp it with the "This software is released under the Cygwin license blah blah see section 10 of the GPL blah blah" stuff, if they want. As I understand it, public domain code is "free" for the stealing. That's why RMS doesn't like public domain, and why the GPL was invented in the first place.

CW> But, I am not sure how your (Egor's) pre-existing "assignment form for CW> continuing contributions" affects this. Does the assignment kick in CW> automatically, since this was developed against the cygwin source dist?

Yes, you're right there was such clause in copyright assignment.
That means that it's up to Redhat to place this code to public domain.
Nope, on second thought, you as the coder have to explicitly "contribute" the code (in the sense of posting it for inclusion) AND that very same code has to be *accepted* into the cygwin codebase. Let's do a thought experiment:

I'm at home, and I whip up some modifications to cygwin. I never show them to anybody. I never distribute the binaries or the code. Does Red Hat own those changes, just because I have one of those letters in a filing cabinet somewhere in North Carolina? Of course not.

Next, assume I publish those changes on the cygwin mailing list. cgf says, "Chuck, that's idiotic -- why would anyone every wnat to do something as stupid as your patch?" and rejects it. Does Red Hat own the code? Naturally not. Am I free to go use that same code in some other (proprietary) project? Yes -- assuming my "patch" was a new and independent file/function, and not simply an extension of something already in cygwin itself -- e.g. my "patch" was not, in itself, a derivative work.

Now, if you DO post the code for inclusion AND it is accepted, then things are a little fuzzy -- but I think the public domain'ing finesses the issue. You release these changes into the public domain -- and just so happen to do that on a cygwin list. ANYONE is free now to take that code, include it in their proprietary product -- and slap a restrictive proprietary license on it.

Including Red Hat.

So, Red Hat (e.g. cgf) can take the code and stick it in cygwin -- and slap the funny cygwin crossbreed GPL/section 10 license on it. "This file is part of cygwin" and all that.

AND mingw (earnie) is free to take the code and stick it into mingw -- and keep the "public domain" status that your originally gave to the code.

No problems.

Anyway, if there's any problems with that, the code can be easily
implemented independently. It's not a rocket science, after all.
Doubt any such problems will arise, since you've explicitly labeled the code as public domain.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]