On Apr 11 09:01, Peter Rosin wrote: > On 2014-04-11 04:17, Christopher Faylor wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 01:15:12AM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote: > >> ... The reason I'm not contributing more is the requirement > >> to assign copyright to a for-profit organization. Sorry. > > > > Yeah. That bothered me a little when I first had to do it and, I have > > to admit, it bothered me when I was at Red Hat and it bothers me now > > too. I think you've hit on a real barrier to entry there and since we > > now have a dataset of two rather than one we can really claim that we're > > right. > > > > I have to ask you have to do something similar with the FSF. Would that > > be an issue for you too? Probably not since it isn't a for-profit entity. > > Right, FSF was ok with my employer, after a bit of convincing. I have > for example helped making Libtool work better on Cygwin (and Windows > in general). Anything for-profit like Redhat (I did bring it up) > was just too much, and that discussion ended pretty quickly. Anyway, > it's not like I'm sitting on any patches and that lifting that > barrier will open any floodgate from this corner. But that said, I > rarely bother looking at the code since there is no way forward on > committing any results, with my trivial patches quota nearly fully > utilized... > > > The other odd thing is that newlib has no requirements for an assignment > > and it is an integral part of Cygwin so I have to wonder how Red Hat > > reconciles that. > > The newlib license is liberal enough for RedHat to relicense it under > their own terms?
That's it, more or less. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
pgpgqzSHxhAea.pgp
Description: PGP signature
