This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: re gdb patches
- To: Denis Joseph Barrow <DJBARROW at de dot ibm dot com>
- Subject: Re: re gdb patches
- From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 13:06:29 -0400
- Cc: Ulrich Weigand <Ulrich dot Weigand at de dot ibm dot com>, Christoph Arenz <ARENZ at de dot ibm dot com>, gdb-patches at sourceware dot cygnus dot com, Wolfgang Bezold <bezold1 at de dot ibm dot com>
- References: <OFDDEE2775.7B65797F-ONC1256AAB.003A409F@de.ibm.com>
>
> The last one time software letter we sent was a few months back & not
> against
> the latest patches, with the aggreement that we send the letter when the
> patch was
> close to integration.
>
> We currently plan to send another one-time letter with this patch,it is
> difficult
> getting our legal guys to aggree to a future assignment form.
> Does the FSF have problems with our one time letters, is it primarily that
> the patches
> are digitally signed & this means they are invalid as soon as I send
> another attempted
> patch for integration.
As they say, I am not a lawyer. I can't comment on the validity of a
letter when the digital signature of the attached files doesn't match.
My gut reaction is to think it is not valid.
Move significantly, I think this need for letters is going to cause
problems down the track. Everytime an IBM employee tries to get a new
non-trivial change into GDB another letter is required. Everytime
someone, not from IBM, posts a patch, and an IBM employee decides to
significantly revise and then re-submit the change, another letter is
required.
Andrew