From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3752 invoked by alias); 20 Apr 2006 17:05:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 3726 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Apr 2006 17:04:57 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Thu, 20 Apr 2006 17:04:53 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1FWcaI-0004vS-Q9 for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Thu, 20 Apr 2006 13:04:50 -0400 Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 17:05:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: OT: copyright issues (was: Re: D Symbol Demangling) Message-ID: <20060420170450.GJ11710@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <44462A40.1040004@kuehne.cn> <20060420132004.GB11710@nevyn.them.org> <20060420152001.GA20059@radix50.net> <200604201540.k3KFeF9U004330@greed.delorie.com> <20060420154630.GA16179@nevyn.them.org> <20060420163934.GB20059@radix50.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060420163934.GB20059@radix50.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-04/txt/msg00282.txt.bz2 On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 06:39:34PM +0200, Baurzhan Ismagulov wrote: > Great! Just to clarify: A and B are employed by a Company and the > employer has all rights on code they produce. A has an assignment and > contributes code to FSF. This code is also included in a closed-source > product, distributed by the Company in binary-only form. B makes a patch > to the code and wants to propagate it into the FSF copy. B doesn't have > an assignment. IIUC, the above says this patch can't be accepted (I > understand "authorship" as personal, not corporate), even though it's > the Company who had donated code. Does this mean that, in order to have > the patch included, B (and only B, not anyone else from the Company) has > to sign a copyright assignment? We're now a bit off topic for gdb-patches; you're in a whole different kettle of fish here, once corporate assignments are involved. It depends on the nature of the company's copyright assignment. If the company has filed disclaimers for an individual's work, then (A) they'd need to have disclaimers for both individuals, and (B) both individuals would need copyright assignment. If the company has a corporate blanket assignment, different rules apply. You should really talk to assign@gnu.org if you have any concerns. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery