> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On Aug 14 11:24, Darryl Miles wrote:
>>> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>>> Please don't forget the "Before you get started" drill as descibed
>>>> on http://cygwin.com/contrib.html >>> I do have questions, they may seem daft, but this issue is legal thing
>>> so the finer points are important:
>> IANAL, but the minimum points should be clear:
>> - The copyright assignment gives Red Hat the right to use the code which
>> has gone into Cygwin. It doesn't influence former or later work of
>> you which has never been applied.
> But its not clear from the agreement how the distinction is made between
> my code that is covered by the agreement and code which is not. So I'm
> just confirming the default situation is that my work is not covered
> under the agreement unless I have explicitly stated otherwise.
Yes, of course; nobody would sign a contract which bound them to redhat for
the rest of their lives for zero pay, and it wouldn't be enforceable even if
it did say that - it's legally inadmissible to sell yourself into slavery.
The agreement covers code that you submit for inclusion in the cygwin code
base. Only work that you voluntarily submit of your own accord. If you don't
want any particular piece of work to be covered by the assignment, simply
don't submit it for inclusion in the cygwin code base.
In order to not submit it for inclusion in the cygwin code base, simply
don't post a patch of it to the cygwin-patches list.
> My objection is that RedHat is a profit generating organization that can
> be bought out or sold in the future and that the companies article of
> association (the primary objective of the company) may be amended at the
> whim of current and future shareholders.
Regardless; the code is GPL'd. Redhat cannot change or withdraw the GPL
license of this code; your contributions are guaranteed to remain public and
opensource forever. That's the whole point of having the GPL: it forbids
anyone (such as RH) to try and take your rights to the code away.
> Where as the FSF (and I think Apache Foundation and Eclipse Foundation)
> are organizations which are not for profit with a specific clear
> purposes to manage copyright and intellectual property for the good of
> their communities.
A meaningless distinction. They could equally change their
constitution/charter/intent and purpose/whatever at some time in the future.
Fortunately the GPL ties their hands too.
> I am happy for Redhat to make money from my contribution, but I am not
> happy to enter into a one sided legally binding agreement with a
> commercial entitiy when there is no commercial gain in it for me.
> Especially when I can't see any justification for the scope of contact
> as written to be so large. This is not a win-win legal situation.
It's not one-sided. It places no ongoing obligation on you. The scope is
not as large as you imagine it to be. Your fears are completely unnecessary.
Take a deep breath and stop worrying, already!
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....