Re: Copyright [cgf, please comment]

["Robert Collins" <robert dot collins at itdomain dot com dot au>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Harold Hunt" <huntharo@msu.edu>
To: "Robert Collins" <robert.collins@itdomain.com.au>
Cc: "cygx" <cygwin-xfree@cygwin.com>
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 8:51 AM
Subject: RE: Copyright [cgf, please comment]


> Robert,
>
> > I'm very sorry that a request that we as a project clarify whats
> > required to accept contributions (given that the source code
conditions
> > from the XFree86 group are very clear) other than source code (thats
a
> > pretty standard thing in projects) has generated such emotional
heat.
>
> Come on... people have motives for what they do.  You can't seriously
tell
> me that a question about copyright so soon after we agreed to disagree
on
> the FAQ has nothing to do with what will happen to the content of the
FAQ
> should the project fork.

Did I ever tell you that the question about copyright was unrelated to
the discussions on the FAQ? No. You are responding to something I've
never said or claimed.

My motivation is simple: We are getting more contributions. That means
the policies surrounding those need to be worked out accurately, as far
in advance as possible. Or should we just carry on with every individual
who decides to contribute having no guidelines, no knowledge of what
they need to do to contribute a "running XDCMP w/ multiple cygwin pc's"
or "getting the GIMP going w/cygwin"?

Copyright assignment is surely a significant issue. I agree completely
with the need for things to be given a (c) mark, and I think the GFDL is
a excellent free documentation licence.

Who holds the copyright is -also- something that needs to be considered.
Every FSF project has it's copyright held by the FSF. Why? So that in
the event of someone breaking the licence it's easily defended. Should
we do less than the FSF do?

I've been thinking about this for a while, in relation to the whole
project (non-source side that is). Copyright wasn't mentioned in
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-xfree/2001-q2/msg01282.html. It
should have been.

Also of note, that email didn't provoke a discussion. So I assumed,
obviously incorrectly that no-one here disagreed substantially with it.

> Then Suhaib comes in with claims that "Cygwin" is a trademarked name
and
> that non-RedHat hosted projects aren't going to be allowed to use the
term,
> and I'm supposed to believe that it just happens to be a coincidence
that he
> chose to bring this up after I mailed the list saying, essentially,
that I
> was leaving?

As Chris Faylor has explained there was a potential issue raised in a
completely different topic that coincided with the discussion here. I
make _no_ claims as to understanding why Suhaib brought that into the
discussion.

> Well, I can only say that I'm glad I'm not as dumb as you think :)

I do not understand why you believe you are being insulted by me.

>
> Harold
>
>