This is the mail archive of the cygwin 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: We need steenking patches (Re: Cygwin kill utility...)

On 2014-04-11 04:17, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 01:15:12AM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> ... The reason I'm not contributing more is the requirement
>> to assign copyright to a for-profit organization. Sorry.
> Yeah.  That bothered me a little when I first had to do it and, I have
> to admit, it bothered me when I was at Red Hat and it bothers me now
> too.  I think you've hit on a real barrier to entry there and since we
> now have a dataset of two rather than one we can really claim that we're
> right.
> I have to ask you have to do something similar with the FSF.  Would that
> be an issue for you too?  Probably not since it isn't a for-profit entity.

Right, FSF was ok with my employer, after a bit of convincing. I have
for example helped making Libtool work better on Cygwin (and Windows
in general). Anything for-profit like Redhat (I did bring it up)
was just too much, and that discussion ended pretty quickly. Anyway,
it's not like I'm sitting on any patches and that lifting that
barrier will open any floodgate from this corner. But that said, I
rarely bother looking at the code since there is no way forward on
committing any results, with my trivial patches quota nearly fully

> The other odd thing is that newlib has no requirements for an assignment
> and it is an integral part of Cygwin so I have to wonder how Red Hat
> reconciles that.

The newlib license is liberal enough for RedHat to relicense it under
their own terms?


Problem reports:
Unsubscribe info:

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