Re: Lack of Cygwin contributors? Was: How is textmode/binmode determined ...

["Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" <lhall at rfk dot com>]

At 04:33 PM 5/2/00, Kendall Bennett wrote:
>Hi Larry,
>
> > At 12:18 PM 5/2/00, Charles Hixson wrote:
> > >It seems to me that what is being requested would be accomplished by having
> > >a branch of the tree that was GPL'd, but within which the authors retained
> > >the copyright rather than assigning it to CygWin.  There may be significant
> > >problems with this or not, I wouldn't know.  But this is what I hear being
> > >requested.
> > 
> > Under the GPL, anyone is free to do this.  I don't see why
> > Cygnus/Red Hat would really want to maintain the ensuing mess
> > though. 
>
>Of course not, because then they lose the right to sell commercial 
>licenses.


Well, they don't loose their right per se, since they have the source
code GPLed right now, but they have the copyright too.  My point is that 
there is no benefit to Cygnus/Red Hat making this change to how they
do things.  I know you would argue that this would get them more
contributors.  And if you're right, then maybe it is worthwhile for the
*project* to be this way.  There's still no obvious benefit to Cygnus/
Red Hat being involved in this.  Whether or not the project would benefit, 
its open to everyone and anyone to take the source and do this.  If you're 
right, the new project created based on Cygwin will far outstrip the level of
contributions, functionality, and attention that the Cygnus/Red Hat 
maintained version.  That's probably the best way to prove your point.



> > I agree with your assessment of what the request is.  I'm not sure
> > the ones making the request really understand why they are making
> > that request, beyond the possibility that "their gut tells them
> > so". 
>
>I understand perfectly why I am making this request. Simply put they 
>were complaining about the lack of external contributors, and I put 
>forward the simple fact that I won't contribute to Cygwin because I 
>don't agree with the licensing required (ie: Cygnus owning my code 
>and having the exclusive right to sell commercial licenses of it).


OK so now we know you won't contribute.  You seem to argue why from your
gut though, since I've seen nothing coming from you that points to a 
document that says that if you assign the copyright to Cygnus that you've
lost some ability to use you contribution.  Indeed, it seems that you think
the GPL provides you with the rights you'd ever be looking for so I don't
understand your problem here.  Your changes and the entire Cygwin DLL are
under the GPL.  However, since you comment on the "exclusivity" of the
of the Cygnus commercial license, it would probably be worth your while to 
look at the assignment form before arguing this point.  It clearly states:


    Upon thirty days' prior written notice, Cygnus agrees to
grant me non-exclusive rights to use the Work (i.e. my changes and
enhancements, not the program which I enhanced) as I see fit; (and
Cygnus's rights shall otherwise continue unchanged).


So if what you contribute is valuable to you stand-alone, Cygnus is not
going to stop you from benefiting, in a closed-source way, from it as well.
This doesn't strike me as exclusive.  And I can't imagine what other right
you would need to feel more comfortable with the idea of contributing.  But
that's up to you to decide personally.

Here's my only point.  If you want to argue that your rights are being 
restricted in a way with which you're uncomfortable, do so, but please make 
sure that you argue from facts and not supposition or impressions.  That just
spreads rumor and innuendo, which doesn't help anyone.



Larry



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com