From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Cagney To: Denis Joseph Barrow Cc: Ulrich Weigand , Christoph Arenz , gdb-patches@sourceware.cygnus.com, Wolfgang Bezold Subject: Re: re gdb patches Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 10:06:00 -0000 Message-id: <3B7D4F15.2010007@cygnus.com> References: X-SW-Source: 2001-08/msg00205.html > > 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