Re: [PATCH/RFC] Add support for PEF, Mach-O, xSYM

[Klee Dienes <klee at apple dot com>]

Sure thing; I wasn't clear about who was submitting; my bad.  I'll have 
to fill one out anyway, when I go to submit my PIC (the chip, not the 
codegen) support for opcodes, so it's nice to have the form around.

The reason for the "missing parts" of the Apple copyright assignment 
are purely historical.  At the time we signed the agreement, the Apple 
legal team wasn't nearly as familiar/comfortable with the GPL as they 
are now.  It took many months of back-and-forth between me, Apple 
legal, and RMS to get the document approved, and each component we 
approved needed its own review at the time.  My primary goal was (and 
still is) to get our GDB changes committed, and since we didn't have 
any local work being done on the GNU as/ld, I decided to leave them off 
and figure we'd just add them later if/when we ever had code to 
contribute for them.

I'll look forward to your review of the patches!  I figured you guys 
were stalling because you were frightened of what I'd be trying to 
submit once the "easy" patches were out of the way (I know I sure am).  
Enjoy your vacation!

On Wednesday, October 23, 2002, at 12:03 PM, Nick Clifton wrote:

> Hi Klee,
>
>    Oops - sorry - I failed to notice that you work for Apple.  Apple
>    has a blanket copyright assignment for most of binutils.  (But not
>    all surprisingly.  LD is left out, for example).
>
>    Anyway I would try to have a look at your patch today but since I
>    am about to go off on holiday for a week (yay) it will have to wait
>    until I get back, sorry.
>
> Cheers
> 	Nick