This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Insight project.
Re: [RFC] syntax highlighting
- From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-no-personal-reply-please at cygwin dot com>
- To: "'Th.R.Klein'" <Th dot R dot Klein at web dot de>, insight at sources dot redhat dot com,Jon Beniston <jbeniston at compxs dot com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 14:34:11 -0400
- Subject: Re: [RFC] syntax highlighting
- References: <430E0651.email@example.com> <20050825180548.A35334A8054@cgf.cx>
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 07:05:20PM +0100, Jon Beniston wrote:
>On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 07:56:33PM +0200, Th.R.Klein wrote:
>>Sorry but I do not understand where I've done something that violates
>>the existing copyright.
>>As far as I'm interpreting this, I'm allowed to modify the source e.g.
>>by adding the syntax highlighting stuff to it.
>You are. If you want to take all the source and start your own fork
>>Red Hat itself might have a set of rules which kind of modification
>>they accept and which they will reject.
>The only reason I can see why you need to assign copyright is so that
>Red Hat can license Insight under a different (non-free) license. But
>maybe I'm being a tad cynical.
Yes, just a tad.
The FSF requires similar license transferrals for gdb and no one ever
accused them of trying to provide things under a non-free license.
In the Insight case, I believe that Red Hat wants to make sure that all
of the code ownership is clear so that there will be no claims where a
company insists that they own some snippet of code added by an employee.
I believe that this is the same reason that the FSF requires similar
transfer of ownership for major changes to gdb, gcc, binutils, etc.
Additionally, since insight intertwines itself with gdb, I don't believe
you could sell it as non-free anyway since gdb's GPL would trump any