Mail Archives: cygwin/2004/04/15/09:55:10
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Christopher Faylor
> Sent: 15 April 2004 14:23
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 02:02:38PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> >Ah, but it's not a matter of it having no copyright, but of the
> >copyright existing and belonging to the FSF so that the GPL can be
> >enforced on the file. If you submit a completely PD bit of
> source to a
> >GPL project, other people can take that code, modify it and
> release it
> >as binaries without being obliged by the GPL to provide sources,
> >because they can claim they're working on your PD version rather than
> >any version distributed under GPL. IOW, making code PD makes it
> >impossible to apply and enforce the GPL to it. IIUIC.
>
> I really don't have to worry about this anymore, but I can't
> stop myself
> from making one comment: It's not the FSF in this case. It is Red Hat
> which needs the copyright assigment. GPLing a bit of code
> which is not
> assigned to Red Hat would make it inappropriate for Cygwin.
>
> cgf
Yeh, of course, how sloppy of me. The point I was trying to express was
that there has to not just be no copyright, but that in the general GPL case
the copyright has to belong to the GPL licensor, whomever it might be for a
particular project.
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -