Re: src/gdb/testsuite ChangeLog lib/insight-suppor ...

Re: src/gdb/testsuite ChangeLog lib/insight-suppor ...

[Michael Elizabeth Chastain]

Hi Martin,

I didn't see this patch go by in gdb-patches@.  Please send the
patch to gdb-patches@ first, and get the approval of the testsuite
maintainer (me), before committing it!

This one's already committed, but can you whip up something anyways: the
patch, plus more explanation of the problems that you ran into, plus a
description of the system that you tested it on.  For the record.

So if next month somebody else has a problem because TCL_LIBRARY
is not set, it will be a lot easier to understand all the cases,
instead of just "well someone took out this line last month
but we're hazy on why".

Thanks,

Michael C

===

	2004-07-14  Martin Hunt  <hunt@redhat.com>
	
	* lib/insight-support.exp (gdbtk_start): Unset TCL_LIBRARY
	which fixes some problems where init.tcl was not found.

Re: src/gdb/testsuite ChangeLog lib/insight-suppor ...

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 04:46:03PM -0400, Michael Chastain wrote:
> Hi Martin,
> 
> I didn't see this patch go by in gdb-patches@.  Please send the
> patch to gdb-patches@ first, and get the approval of the testsuite
> maintainer (me), before committing it!

Is this file part of GDB?  I don't really think so, since none of the
rest of Insight is.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz

Re: src/gdb/testsuite ChangeLog lib/insight-suppor ...

[Martin M. Hunt]

On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 13:46, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> Hi Martin,
> 
> I didn't see this patch go by in gdb-patches@.  Please send the
> patch to gdb-patches@ first, and get the approval of the testsuite
> maintainer (me), before committing it!

I thought that was mine because its Insight and not GDB.  Anyway can't
hurt to post it, so I did.
 
-- 
Martin M. Hunt <hunt@redhat.com>
Red Hat Inc.

[commit/6.2] Fix lib (C)s; Was: src/gdb/testsuite ChangeLog lib/insight-suppor ...

[Andrew Cagney]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 148 bytes --]

FYI,

I've checked this in.  Wacks a further two (C) problems (the file was 
moved to an insight directory).

committed to mainline and 6.2,
Andrew

[-- Attachment #2: diffs --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1345 bytes --]

2004-07-16  Andrew Cagney  <cagney@redhat.com>

	* lib/insight-support.exp: Delete file.
	* lib/java.exp (java_init): Fix copyright.

Index: lib/java.exp
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/testsuite/lib/java.exp,v
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -p -u -r1.2 java.exp
--- lib/java.exp	25 Sep 2003 16:25:56 -0000	1.2
+++ lib/java.exp	17 Jul 2004 02:01:55 -0000
@@ -1,4 +1,20 @@
-# Copyright (C) 1998, 1999 Red Hat, Inc.
+# This test code is part of GDB, the GNU debugger.
+
+# Copyright 1998, 1999, 2000, 2003 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+
+# This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
+# it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
+# the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
+# (at your option) any later version.
+# 
+# This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
+# but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
+# MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
+# GNU General Public License for more details.
+# 
+# You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
+# along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
+# Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA.  
 
 load_lib "libgloss.exp"
 

Re: [commit/6.2] Fix lib (C)s; Was: src/gdb/testsuite ChangeLog lib/insight-suppor ...

[Michael Elizabeth Chastain]

+# This test code is part of GDB, the GNU debugger.
+
+# Copyright 1998, 1999, 2000, 2003 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

Since the file was edited in 2004, please add 2004 as well.

Michael C

Re: [commit/6.2] Fix lib (C)s; Was: src/gdb/testsuite ChangeLog lib/insight-suppor ...

[Andrew Cagney]

> +# This test code is part of GDB, the GNU debugger.
> +
> +# Copyright 1998, 1999, 2000, 2003 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> 
> Since the file was edited in 2004, please add 2004 as well.

My replacing the copyright notice?  That doesn't constitute a change to 
to the copyrighted work.

Andrew

Re: [commit/6.2] Fix lib (C)s; Was: src/gdb/testsuite ChangeLog lib/insight-suppor ...

[Michael Elizabeth Chastain]

ac> My replacing the copyright notice?  That doesn't constitute a change to 
ac> to the copyrighted work.

It's 16 lines of new text, so I think it's a change.

Michael C

Re: [commit/6.2] Fix lib (C)s; Was: src/gdb/testsuite ChangeLog lib/insight-suppor ...

[Andrew Cagney]

> ac> My replacing the copyright notice?  That doesn't constitute a change to 
> ac> to the copyrighted work.
> 
> It's 16 lines of new text, so I think it's a change.

As with a book, this file contains two things: the "work" (i.e., the tcl 
code) and the (C) notice.  Changes to the (C) notice / terms do not 
create a new "work", only modifications to the "work" do..

Andrew

Re: [commit/6.2] Fix lib (C)s; Was: src/gdb/testsuite ChangeLog lib/insight-suppor ...

[Michael Elizabeth Chastain]

ac> As with a book, this file contains two things: the "work" (i.e., the tcl 
ac> code) and the (C) notice.  Changes to the (C) notice / terms do not 
ac> create a new "work", only modifications to the "work" do..

I think the boilerplate text also constitutes part of the work.

I see your position, but I don't agree.  I'm going to add a "2004"
to this file.

Michael C

Re: [commit/6.2] Fix lib (C)s; Was: src/gdb/testsuite ChangeLog lib/insight-suppor ...

[Andrew Cagney]

> ac> As with a book, this file contains two things: the "work" (i.e., the tcl 
> ac> code) and the (C) notice.  Changes to the (C) notice / terms do not 
> ac> create a new "work", only modifications to the "work" do..
> 
> I think the boilerplate text also constitutes part of the work.
> 
> I see your position, but I don't agree.  I'm going to add a "2004"
> to this file.

Given that the boilerplate "work" is stolen from COPYING and that has a 
(C) of 1989,1991 why should you not instead be adding those dates (and 
have those dates through out all of GDB's files)?

Andrew

Re: [commit/6.2] Fix lib (C)s; Was: src/gdb/testsuite ChangeLog lib/insight-suppor ...

[Michael Elizabeth Chastain]

> Given that the boilerplate "work" is stolen from COPYING and that has a 
> (C) of 1989,1991 why should you not instead be adding those dates (and 
> have those dates through out all of GDB's files)?

If I had infinite time, I would.

Michael C

Re: [commit/6.2] Fix lib (C)s; Was: src/gdb/testsuite ChangeLog lib/insight-suppor ...

[Andrew Cagney]

>>Given that the boilerplate "work" is stolen from COPYING and that has a 
>>> (C) of 1989,1991 why should you not instead be adding those dates (and 
>>> have those dates through out all of GDB's files)?
> 
> 
> If I had infinite time, I would.

Lets consult the resident expert then :-)
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2004-07/msg00211.html

Daniel,

the patch changes the (C) from Red Hat to FSF.  The year 2003 was added 
as a change was made then.  Michael's asking that 2004 be also added as 
that's the year.

Thoughts?
Andrew

Re: [commit/6.2] Fix lib (C)s; Was: src/gdb/testsuite ChangeLog lib/insight-suppor ...

[Daniel Berlin]

On Jul 19, 2004, at 9:07 PM, Andrew Cagney wrote:

>>> Given that the boilerplate "work" is stolen from COPYING and that 
>>> has a
>>>> (C) of 1989,1991 why should you not instead be adding those dates 
>>>> (and have those dates through out all of GDB's files)?
>> If I had infinite time, I would.
>
> Lets consult the resident expert then :-)
> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2004-07/msg00211.html
>
> Daniel,
>
> the patch changes the (C) from Red Hat to FSF.  The year 2003 was 
> added as a change was made then.  Michael's asking that 2004 be also 
> added as that's the year.

If the only thing that changed was the copyright notice or license 
text, i wouldn't do it, because you haven't changed any of the actual 
copyrighted work, and thus, have not created a new derivative work.  
Though some sufficiently anal retentive lawyer might tell you 
otherwise.

It all comes down to whether you consider the license part of the 
original work or not (since that is what you changed, if it's part of 
the work, than you've made a derivative).

Let me explain why :

Copyright notice dates are dates of first publication, not dates of 
change.
In our (distributed free software development) case, they are somewhat 
similar.
This is because
1. You are supposed to use the date of first publication of each 
derivative work in that derivative works copyright notice (In other 
words every new derivative work gets a new publication date added to 
the copyright notice.)
and
2. Every time we make a change to actual code, and publish it to the 
public cvs server (and the web, and the ftp server), and thus, the 
world, we are effectively creating a new published derivative work as 
of the date/time you commit the change.

Thus,
3. the copyright date gets updated, because you've created a new 
derivative work, and are publishing it, and thus, add the new date of 
publication to the copyright notice.

So if you consider the license part of the protected work, and thus, 
changing just the license text to be creating a new derivative work, 
then you need to update the copyright date.
If you don't, you don't need to update the copyright date.

Given all of that:

Unless you think that changing only the license text creates a new 
derivative work (i don't, because i doubt that legalese is a 
protectible part of the work), you don't need to update the copyright 
date.
As i said, some sufficiently anal retentive lawyer might tell you that 
it does create a new derivative work, and thus, you should update the 
copyright notice.

However, the worst that happens if you get this wrong on the side of 
not a late enough date is that the protection date is calculated from 
the earlier date.  So you'd lose a year of copyright protection on the 
protectible part of that derivative version (derivative copyrights 
cover mainly the new work added to the derivative).   None of us will 
be alive when this code comes out of copyright in any case (in fact, 
your kids will probably be dead as well), so it's probably not worth 
worrying about in this case, unless someone official tells you to do 
it.
:).


BTW, the answer to every legal question ever is "it depends".
--Dan



> Thoughts?
> Andrew
>
>

Re: [commit/6.2] Fix lib (C)s; Was: src/gdb/testsuite ChangeLog lib/insight-suppor ...

[Michael Elizabeth Chastain]

> So if you consider the license part of the protected work, and thus, 
> changing just the license text to be creating a new derivative work, 
> then you need to update the copyright date.
> If you don't, you don't need to update the copyright date.

Yeah, I believe that too.

But I think the text quoted (in the URL Andrew cited) is long enough
to make it worthwhile.

Michael C

Re: [commit/6.2] Fix lib (C)s; Was: src/gdb/testsuite ChangeLog lib/insight-suppor ...

[Daniel Berlin]

On Jul 20, 2004, at 1:18 AM, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:

>> So if you consider the license part of the protected work, and thus,
>> changing just the license text to be creating a new derivative work,
>> then you need to update the copyright date.
>> If you don't, you don't need to update the copyright date.
>
> Yeah, I believe that too.
>
> But I think the text quoted (in the URL Andrew cited) is long enough
> to make it worthwhile.

It's not the length of the text that makes it able to be protected (my 
dictionary keeps claiming protectable is not a word, so it must be a 
lawyer word).
A phone book is very long, but not able to be protected at all (Much to 
their chagrin :P).
The text quoted has to meet a set of requirements for originality, etc, 
in order to be able to be protected.
I don't believe it does.

>
> Michael C

Re: [commit/6.2] Fix lib (C)s; Was: src/gdb/testsuite ChangeLog lib/insight-suppor ...

[Michael Elizabeth Chastain]

db> A phone book is very long, but not able to be protected at all
db> (Much to their chagrin :P).
db> The text quoted has to meet a set of requirements for originality, etc, 
db> in order to be able to be protected.
db> I don't believe it does.

Okay, I see it would be hard to defend the FSF contact information
and the license terms as protectible.

But I'm concerned that the testsuite in particular has been very lax
in applying copyright notices, and I don't want people to think
"oh, it's just test code, it doesn't need a copyright notice".

Michael C