Re: Rsync over ssh (pulling from Cygwin to Linux) stalls..

[Darryl Miles <darryl-mailinglists at netbauds dot net>]

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 06:24:41PM +0100, Darryl Miles wrote:
> > But in response to your quip, it also part of the problem, I'm not going 
> > to appoint legal council address this issue, its just not that important 
> > to me.
>
> Funny you should use those words.
>
> Again, I'll say that it is vanishingly unlikely that you will be talking
> to a Red Hat lawyer so if you can't sign the Cygwin license agreement,
> you won't be getting code into Cygwin.  There is no way to circumvent
> this requirement.

Yes I use those words just because I understand RHs position.

There is nothing to stop me publically maintaining a patch and patched 
version of CYGWIN and source tree to build it as GPLed work.

There is little stopping someone coming along who will sign the 
agreement from looking at my patch, getting the general idea and 
implementing their own version of a similar thing and for that work to 
be submitted.

Either way I have my fix and cygwin might have a usable submission.



You could also think of the situation differently, if RedHat were not 
around (went bankrupt, ha ha, LOL).  Then someone took over or setup a 
cygwin website the first thing that would go would be the copyright 
assignment agreement, since its a superfluous piece of documentation 
that only served RedHat.

I have no idea how the law deals with non-existant copyright holders, 
people dying or companies going bankrupt.  The people issue maybe dealt 
with as straightforward inheritance.  But the incorporated company. 
This maybe another reason why the FSF is a better bet, yes it is still 
possible for a not-for-profit organization to go bankrupt but I'd hope 
less likely and probably more amenable to accept donations from business 
to restructure it should it get into difficulties (like I believe it to 
have in the past).


Darryl