Re: libremote status?

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 07:18:56PM -0700, Fred Viles wrote:
> Dang, bitten by the listserver (and my inattention) again.  Sorry for 
> the PM, Chris.
> 
> ------- Forwarded message follows -------
> From:           	Fred Viles <fv@epitools.com>
> To:             	Christopher Faylor <cgf@redhat.com>
> Subject:        	Re: libremote status?
> Date sent:      	Thu, 10 Oct 2002 19:17:07 -0700
> 
> On 9 Oct 2002 at 15:03, Christopher Faylor wrote about
>     "Re: libremote status?":
> 
> | On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 02:42:35PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> | >On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 09:39:53AM -0700, Kevin Buettner wrote:
> | >I assume that, given the name change, there is no plan for RDA to be
> | >contributed to the FSF?  And that, as such, there can be no effort to
> | >combine all this beautiful server architecture with the fact that we
> | >have a working gdbserver implementation, and active development on it?
> | 
> | We will not be releasing this to the FSF, no.  We still need to hold
> | the copyright for various reasons.
> 
> OTOH, according to the comment blocks at the start of every file you 
> are releasing it under the GPL.  Doesn't that mean that it can be 
> incorporated into other GPL'ed projects pretty much without 
> additional restriction?  I obviously son't understand the issues 
> here...

In general, yes; GNU projects, no.  Remember the oft-mentioned
copyright assignment forms?  It's FSF policy (usually) that the FSF
hold copyright on the entire source base of a GNU project like GDB.

It's a reasonable policy; it gives the FSF close control over licensing
issues and centralizes copyright defense if it should become necessary. 
I believe those are the reasons.

[And I want to apologize again to Chris and others for my tone in that
quote; I do really appreciate the work they've done to get this project
released to the community.]


-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer