Re: Lack of Cygwin contributors? Was: How is textmode/binmode determined ...

["Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" <lhall at rfk dot com>]

At 05:42 PM 5/2/00, Kendall Bennett wrote:
>"Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" <lhall@rfk.com> wrote:
>
> > Well, they don't loose their right per se, since they have the
> > source code GPLed right now, but they have the copyright too.  My
> > point is that there is no benefit to Cygnus/Red Hat making this
> > change to how they do things.  I know you would argue that this
> > would get them more contributors.  And if you're right, then maybe
> > it is worthwhile for the *project* to be this way.  There's still
> > no obvious benefit to Cygnus/ Red Hat being involved in this. 
>
>Nope, so then Cygnus has to put up with the fact that they will end 
>up footing most of the core development costs. This is in fact how it 
>has worked with our own Open Source projects. We have lots of 
>customers using the code, but relatively few making modifications and 
>enhancements. Instead we foot the bill and do most of the core 
>development on the code, but we accept that.


Fine.  But you argue from a point of view that is at least not assured for
Cygnus/Red Hat.  You're asserting that they don't get more contributors
because of the licensing terms.  Maybe that's true.  Maybe not.  What 
would be the benefit of Cygnus/Red Hat making a change to do as you 
request without some assurance that they ARE going to see some increased
involvement as a result.  As I said, the *PROJECT* (i.e. the source code
itself) may benefit from this kind of move.  The project doesn't need 
money to keep it going necessarily.  Cygnus/Red Hat does.  Changing things
as you suggest puts the revenue stream of the Cygwin product in jeopardy.
That is why I say that there's no obvious reason for Cygnus/Red Hat to be
involved in a change like this IMO (at least at this point).  I don't 
know whether I personally would agree that the project would have more
contributors if it were only under the GPL but I also don't see a strong
reason to not to try it and see, if the project is all I'm considering that
is.  BTW, I have no affiliation with Cygnus/Red Hat, beyond liking their
products!;-)


> > OK so now we know you won't contribute.  You seem to argue why
> > from your gut though, since I've seen nothing coming from you that
> > points to a document that says that if you assign the copyright to
> > Cygnus that you've lost some ability to use you contribution. 
>
>I am not a lawyer, but I do feel that I have a very firm grasp on 
>copyright law simply because I am involved in multiple Open Source 
>projects as well as developing and licensing proprietry products. If 
>I assign my copyright for a piece of code to someone else, I lose 
>*ALL* rights to that code and *CANNOT* use that code myself for my 
>own purposes. The only way that I can do that is if I *RETAIN* the 
>copyright and simply allow others to use it under a specific license. 
>If this was not the case, then every employee who has ever written a 
>line of code for a commercial enterprise would be able to use that 
>code for whatever they want, regardless of whether their employer 
>owns the copyright on the code they develop.


You're arguing generalities.  I'm talking specifics.  I'm not going to 
argue that in general when you sign over your copyright on something that
you still have rights to it.  I'm simply stating that the Cygnus/Red Hat
assignment form says what it says (and that part you spliced out of my 
original argument above) and it states that they will allow you non-exclusive
rights to any contribution of yours which has use apart from Cygwin.  From 
your philosophic standpoint, I expect you'll argue that's not enough for you. 
That's fine by me but let's stick to specifics if we're going to talk about 
specific works, Cygwin in this case.  

In case you're wondering were I got the assignment form text that I put in
my original prose, see http://sourceware.cygnus.com/cygwin/assign.txt.


> > Here's my only point.  If you want to argue that your rights are
> > being restricted in a way with which you're uncomfortable, do so,
> > but please make sure that you argue from facts and not supposition
> > or impressions.  That just spreads rumor and innuendo, which
> > doesn't help anyone. 
>
>Sorry, but I simply don't agree with you there.


What part of this statement don't you agree with?  That you feel 
contributing to Cygwin restricts your rights in a way in which you are comfortable?  That there is a reason to argue with supposition and 
impressions of those Cygwin restrictions?  Or that spreading rumor and 
innuendo helps someone???

I'm going to assume that you just didn't read my statement carefully 
enough and that you thought you were disagreeing with something else!;-)



Larry



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com