On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 02:02:38PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote: >Ah, but it's not a matter of it having no copyright, but of the >copyright existing and belonging to the FSF so that the GPL can be >enforced on the file. If you submit a completely PD bit of source to a >GPL project, other people can take that code, modify it and release it >as binaries without being obliged by the GPL to provide sources, >because they can claim they're working on your PD version rather than >any version distributed under GPL. IOW, making code PD makes it >impossible to apply and enforce the GPL to it. IIUIC.
I really don't have to worry about this anymore, but I can't stop myself from making one comment: It's not the FSF in this case. It is Red Hat which needs the copyright assigment. GPLing a bit of code which is not assigned to Red Hat would make it inappropriate for Cygwin. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
