On Apr 8 16:44, Adam Dinwoodie wrote: > 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.
Right, as long as it falls under the trivial patch rule. We usually draw the line at about 10 lines of changes. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
pgpXt0ibkDG7h.pgp
Description: PGP signature
