re gdb patches

re gdb patches

[Denis Joseph Barrow]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 997 bytes --]

Hi Andrew,

>As things stand, the FSF doesn't own this code and, as a consequence,
>people have strong reservations about working on it.  (IBM will only
>assign the copyright using a letter that cites a digitally signed patch.
>I understand this process to be slow and complicated.).

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.



D.J. Barrow Gnu/Linux for S/390 kernel developer
eMail: djbarrow@de.ibm.com,barrow_dj@yahoo.com
Phone: +49-(0)7031-16-2583
IBM Germany Lab, Schönaicherstr. 220, 71032 Böblingen

Re: re gdb patches

[Andrew Cagney]

> 
> 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