This is the mail archive of the
cygwin
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: We need steenking patches (Re: Cygwin kill utility...)
- From: Peter Rosin <peda at lysator dot liu dot se>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 09:01:37 +0200
- Subject: Re: We need steenking patches (Re: Cygwin kill utility...)
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <5F8AAC04F9616747BC4CC0E803D5907D0C8B89AF at MLBXv04 dot nih dot gov> <20140408181301 dot GD2731 at ednor dot casa dot cgf dot cx> <CAAXzdLUJaQ3ap06EPD51ua45d7vqmaPanCZRo9CZDPKmMfm5=w at mail dot gmail dot com> <20140409032833 dot GA2351 at ednor dot casa dot cgf dot cx> <CAAXzdLUk3L3zRcGoLmb=GM-rnF7K8Y=fqNA8n9gfgVhja5TL2Q at mail dot gmail dot com> <20140409055117 dot GA1878 at ednor dot casa dot cgf dot cx> <CAAXzdLXxAnB0JYHuvJj44ZAT=Uc-G12Xt+xsirnmiPBkOJ4U-w at mail dot gmail dot com> <53457A4C dot 1050104 at etr-usa dot com> <20140409170517 dot GA6319 at ednor dot casa dot cgf dot cx> <53472600 dot 7050008 at lysator dot liu dot se> <20140411021742 dot GA6242 at ednor dot casa dot cgf dot cx>
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
utilized...
> 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?
Cheers,
Peter
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple