Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Message-ID: <390CAEA9.6AE94353@gingerspice.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 23:07:37 +0100 From: Ian Miller X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com CC: rms AT gnu DOT org Subject: Re: Lack of Cygwin contributors? Was: How is textmode/binmode determined ... References: <1DB8BA4BAC88D3118B2300508B5A552C0C8CDC AT mail DOT fitlinxx DOT com>; <20000428011221 DOT A1537 AT cygnus DOT com> <200004301309350 DOT SM00160 AT KENDALLB> <20000430171801 DOT A2612 AT cygnus DOT com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Chris Faylor wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 01:06:40PM -0800, Kendall Bennett wrote: > >I am sorry, but do you really expect developers to contribute to a > >project with such draconian licensing? I am not going to spend my > >free time making Cygwin better so that Cygus/Red Hat can sell > >commercial licenses of it and make money from *my* fixes and/or > >enhancements. > > Yes, as a former net developer, I can expect this. Before I worked at > Cygnus, I wanted to contribute to a cool free software project. I > didn't really care if my efforts were sold by Cygnus to some big > company. So, I started working on Cygwin. I assume that the > contributors that we do have currently feel the same way. Hang on.... I'm confused here.... Just recently I got into a blazing row with the person who wrote the following statement:- http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/jargon/ Open source is designed to advance the intellectual property of the corporation at the expense of effort by individuals outside the corporation. As such, it falls under corporatism, as defined in John Ralston Saul's dictionary The Doubter's companion. I completely disputed this statement, but he would not budge from his stance. Eventually I wrote directly to RMS and he reassured me that it was nonsense. However, reading the above discussion it would appear that the statement does indeed hold in this instance? Only I don't fully understand how it could.... Surely if a non-Cygnus contributor makes a contribution to Cygwin then this contributor still implicitly retains his copyright in that contribution (obviously this is somewhat dependent on the significance of the contribution). In that case, the only way that Cygnus may use that code contribution is if it is licensed to them -- presumably under the terms of the GPL? In which case, how is it legal for Cygnus to then license that contribution to a third party under some license *other* than the GPL? I realise this is now moving into gnu.misc.discuss territory, but since it was brought up here, and this is the first time it has occured to me that Cygnus may be increasing its intellectual property at the expense of others' generosity, I thought I'd better ask for clarification here. Presumably if every contributor released each contribution they made as a part of a *complete distribution* of Cygwin and under the GPL, then Cygnus would most definitely not be allowed to license this to third parties under a proprietary license? Btw, although it might sound like it, I'm *not* having a go at Cygnus, I'm just interested in the way things actually work! cheers, ian -- +------------------------------+----------------------------------------------+ | ian miller | My other MUA is a GNU. | | ian AT gingerspice DOT demon DOT co DOT uk | http://www.gingerspice.demon.co.uk | +------------------------------+----------------------------------------------+ -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com