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

["Williams, Gerald S \(Jerry\)" <gsw at agere dot com>]

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.

> I'm also looking to general cases (part of the reason I care
> is because when/if I ever have anything I want to contribute to
> Cygwin, I will have the same concerns, and possibly for a much
> larger contribution).

Yes, I guess we should have changed the Subject line somewhere along
the way... :-)

gsw