From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8278 invoked by alias); 11 Sep 2009 08:10:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 8267 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Sep 2009 08:10:41 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout3.012.net.il (HELO mtaout3.012.net.il) (84.95.2.7) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 Sep 2009 08:10:37 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.i_mtaout3.012.net.il by i_mtaout3.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) id <0KPS00J00RQ5Z600@i_mtaout3.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com; Fri, 11 Sep 2009 11:10:34 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.228.50.163]) by i_mtaout3.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) with ESMTPA id <0KPS000TNS1MVD60@i_mtaout3.012.net.il>; Fri, 11 Sep 2009 11:10:34 +0300 (IDT) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 08:10:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdb: gdb.1 - order options alphabetically in manual page In-reply-to: <20090910225202.GN20694@adacore.com> To: Joel Brobecker Cc: jari.aalto@cante.net, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83sket299x.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87hbvct24x.fsf@jondo.cante.net> <20090910010821.GG20694@adacore.com> <20090910013154.GA4244@caradoc.them.org> <20090910225202.GN20694@adacore.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes 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/msg00311.txt.bz2 > Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 15:52:02 -0700 > From: Joel Brobecker > > > 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... I agree with Daniel that reordering existing text does not need a copyright assignment. But if we are not sure, we can ask RMS.