From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2420 invoked by alias); 10 Sep 2009 22:52:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 2411 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Sep 2009 22:52:16 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 Sep 2009 22:52:13 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2BAA2BAC4D; Thu, 10 Sep 2009 18:52:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id o0tXpTzwGzvu; Thu, 10 Sep 2009 18:52:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 849222BAC4B; Thu, 10 Sep 2009 18:52:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E8248F5915; Thu, 10 Sep 2009 15:52:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 22:52:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Jari Aalto , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdb: gdb.1 - order options alphabetically in manual page Message-ID: <20090910225202.GN20694@adacore.com> References: <87hbvct24x.fsf@jondo.cante.net> <20090910010821.GG20694@adacore.com> <20090910013154.GA4244@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090910013154.GA4244@caradoc.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-09/txt/msg00294.txt.bz2 > I'd say this was a non-copyrightable change, and thus acceptable. > http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/Legally-Significant.html#Legally-Significant I still wasn't sure from the section you are quoting that it was acceptable. Are you saying that the idea of ordering the description in alphabetical order is not copyrightable, and since there is only one way to change the documentation to implement that idea, it is obvious, and thus not copyrightable? Robert Dewar thinks that we should require a proper assignment to accept this change... -- Joel