Mail Archives: cygwin/2002/01/10/20:54:19
On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 08:31:49PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 02:03:43AM +0100, Karsten Fleischer wrote:
>>> I'm not sure but I don't think it matters if the sources are
>>> proprietary. Maybe this is getting incredibly picky but if you adapted
>>> algorithms from other non-GPL compliant programs then that is probably
>>> an issue, too.
>>
>>I don't know if something like "If the first four bytes of a file are
>>'poop', then hold your breath" is considered an algorithm.
>>I've contacted Glenn Fowler regarding this issue.
>>He'll confirm what I've said.
>>
>>> This wouldn't be an issue for the Berkeley license, though. I don't know
>>> what the AST tools use for licensing.
>>
>>OK, once again:
>>http://www.research.att.com/sw/license/ast-open.html
>
>I assume you must have mentioned this before. I missed it.
>
>Sorry.
And, I'm sorry but it really looks to me like you'd need a release from
AT&T indicating that any patches you provided to us are unemcumbered by
this license. I don't see how you can sign away the rights to any
patches that you make if you have been working on code that is covered
by this license.
Specifically, the "YOUR GRANT OF RIGHTS TO AT&T" clause seems to indicate
that they have the right to use your patches if they want them. That is
understandable but I think that it inviolates your right to assign anything
to us.
I'll stop apologizing for this after this message but I will reiterate
that I don't like this. I do get asked about this kind of thing all of
the time within and without Red Hat, though. I don't want to be in a
position of having to say "Uh oh!" to our corporate counsel sometime in
the future.
cgf
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -