On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 01:34:21PM +0000, Lavrentiev, Anton (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [C] wrote: > > He's a contractor for the US Government. That makes things complicated and > > sometimes seemingly nonsensical. > > Thanks, Barry. > > A patch (however small) means code, all my code must under the Public Domain > Notice (and which can't be GPL'd). Thus, our legal > office does not allow us contributing any such code, but verbal description > of a problem (hence not constituting code per se) is okay.
I'm not sure what *the* Public Domain Notice is, but I don't know of any public domain "licence" or declaration which isn't compatible with the GNU GPL. The FSF seems to agree: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#PublicDomain If you provide a patch with a disclaimer that you are putting the patch in the public domain, I would expect Corinna/cgf/Red Hat would be able to incorporate it into the project. They can then distribute it under the GPL without you needing to do any of the copyright assignment or distributing anything under the GPL yourself. -- 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
