Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 09:54:07 +1000 (EST) From: Luke Kendall Subject: Re: zsh startup oddity To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com In-Reply-To: <1112600771.24256.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII Message-Id: <20050404235407.B816C8553D@pessard.research.canon.com.au> On 4 Apr, Michael Wardle replied to: > > BTW, should you include a copyright and license term comment in shell.c? > > It would make me feel much more comfortable. > > It's a trivial program I wrote with reference to no other programs. I > hereby release it into the public domain. Use it as you like. Great, but for legal reasons, doesn't that statement need to be inside the source file itself? I thought you'd need to have a copyright statement in there so that it even had a *chance* of being adopted into the official Cygwin release. I had a look at http://cygwin.com/contrib.html, and saw these guidelines: If your change is going to be a significant one in terms of the size of your code changes, be aware that you will have to sign over the copyright ownership of your code changes to Red Hat or the FSF (depending on the source file) before we can include your changes in the main source tree. Your employer may also have to send us a disclaimer stating that they have no claims to your contribution. This is necessary for liability reasons. Here [http://cygwin.com/assign.txt] is our standard assignment form for changes to Cygwin that you can fill out, sign, and send back. I also think that there are big difficulties about getting anything into the public domain. Much easier to put it under a Free or OSS licence. See below, from a googled discussion page about Dmitri Sklyarov that drifted into the topic. Unfortunately, the legal practicalities can't be ignored without risking damage to Cygwin, IMHO. Sorry to be so pushy about this, but it's simply because I'm really hoping to see your shell.c included in the official Cygwin distribution! Best regards, luke Karsten M. Self: Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 17:15:18 -0800 Subject: [free-sklyarov] RE: Free Sklyarov In-Reply-To: <5 DOT 1 DOT 0 DOT 14 DOT 0 DOT 20011115001123 DOT 00abc600 AT mail DOT maden DOT org>; from crism AT XXX DOT org on Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 12:13:34AM -0800 References: <1311806743 DOT 20011115094450 AT centras DOT lt> <5 DOT 1 DOT 0 DOT 14 DOT 0 DOT 20011115001123 DOT 00abc600 AT mail DOT maden DOT org> Message-ID: <20011115171518 DOT E19665 AT navel DOT introspect> --1XWsVB21DFCvn2e8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable on Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 12:13:34AM -0800, Christopher R. Maden (crism AT maden= ..org) wrote: >=20 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 >=20 > At 00:44 15-11-2001, DeBug wrote: >> I find it very dangerous to REQUIRE that every software had a >> copyright holder. For example I want to put my program into public >> domain anonymously so that noone can control how other people use it. >> It seems to be impossible because BY DEFAULT any program has an owner >> i.e. lawers want to have a person that could answer in the court who >> can and who cannot use the program. >=20 > Well, you have copyright when you create it - you can then assign that=20 > copyright to the public domain.=20 It's not clear that this is possible. "Public domain" is not a term defined in the US copyright statute. The definition I have from _Black's Law Dictionary_ is The realm of publications, inventions, and processes that are not protected by copyright or patent. The strict legal argument I've seen is that a work doesn't enter public domain until it has lapsed copyright, isn't subject to copyright in the first place (e.g.: works of the US Federal Government), or has had copyright stripped of it by court order or other legal means. A work may be *licensed freely*, but it is still subject to copyright status -- absent the license, it *is* covered by copyright law, and isn't freely available for use. Copyright ownership can be assigned. I'm not sure what entities a copyright may be assigned to to place it in the public domain -- "assigned to all persons for any use"? Or if a registration indicating same would be accepted by the US Library of Congress. Such an assignment would seem to be non controversial, but.... > The default state, legally, is that a work is copyright as soon as > someone creates it. And if your program is held to be illegal in some > way, then you could be charged (at least as an accomplice) for > creating and distributing the program, copyright issues aside. >=20 > This demonstrates, I think, some of the problems that arise when a > work is held itself to be illegal in some way, as opposed to just its > use. I think we're in some agreement here, though I'll amplify the point. There are specific legal obligations which come about as a result of copyright, largely under the DMCA, but also other liabilities. Dmitry may well be a victim of this contingent liability. These are obligations of ownership, and simply stating that a work is "public domain" may not be sufficient to transfer these liabilities to the public at large without consideration or affirmation, or it may not be possible to transfer them from the author at all. The latter situation creates a distinction between "copyright holder" (including "public at large") and "author", as concerns liability. IANAL, TINLA -- 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/