On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 05:50:26PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >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.
I'm assuming that it isn't just as trivial as "it's public domain" since the government is involved. -- 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
