Re: Configure GDB for MinGW

Christopher Faylor
2004-05-26T02:27:00Z

On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 11:43:42PM +0200, Manu wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>> On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 07:36:51PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
>> > From: "Manu"
>> > Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 12:04:20 +0200
>> >
>> >Thanks for your contribution. I think it is small enough to be
>> >accepted without a copyright assignment, especially if you follow the
>> >advice below. I'm not completely sure though.
>>
>> I guess we'd have to see the actual finished patch but given that it makes
>> changes to a number of files and adds new functionality, I don't think
>> it really could be considered trivial.
>
>Is it true that the FSF sometimes accepts a disclaimer instead of a
>copyright assignment?

I believe they do sometimes.

>I've been managing a project for two or three years, I created the
>application under the GNU GPL and its library under the public domain.
>I'm supporting both Free Software and Open Source. Then, I think you
>can trust what I'm providing. IMO, It is more valuable than any paper.

Judging your reputation isn't really an option for me. I work for TimeSys.
If you want to take up the matter with the FSF and let me know what they
think I can wait for that. The paperwork isn't that odious and signing
it would mean that you can make future hassle-free contributions to gdb.

In the meantime, I'll wait on your patch. Maybe it really could be
considered trivial. We could always get a ruling from Andrew. It still
seems like the best long term solution would be to get the assignment
in with the FSF, though.

I'm not quite sure how you could do the cygming stuff that I mentioned
in a patch but if you just supply patches against cygwin named files,
and use cygming in the configuration, I'll figure things out somehow.

cgf