From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22282 invoked by alias); 7 Nov 2003 21:24:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 22237 invoked from network); 7 Nov 2003 21:24:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO web13804.mail.yahoo.com) (216.136.175.14) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 7 Nov 2003 21:24:19 -0000 Message-ID: <20031107212418.63567.qmail@web13804.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.59.142.117] by web13804.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 13:24:17 PST Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 21:24:00 -0000 From: Mark Newman Subject: Re: gdb Digest 7 Nov 2003 16:00:26 -0000 Issue 1325 To: Jim Ingham Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-11/txt/msg00073.txt.bz2 --- Jim Ingham wrote: > > On Nov 7, 2003, at 10:03 AM, Mark Newman wrote: > > > JIm - > > > > could you point us to your cvs? > > http://developer.apple.com/darwin/tools/cvs/howto.html > > But as I told Elena, we got behind in merging what > with all we had to > do for Panther, so I would hold off looking at this > for another couple > of weeks. It will probably be clearer when Klee is > done. > > > > > In addition can you provide a pointer or whatever > to > > something that indicates that that code is not > Apple > > IP and does not contain any Apple or anyone else's > IP? > > > > Our blanket copyright assignment is on file with the > FSF, and we > release all our gdb changes publicly with the FSF > copyright statements > in place. I think this is sufficient. > Sorry Jim - I don't mean to be a pain but apparently it isn't. I have been working the copyright assignment issue with our legal office and the FSF copyright team. The FSF position is that if I put in somebody else's code and the FSF is sued over that code then I as the person who put the code in am responsible for determining that that code is OpenSource. It does not matter that I put the code in in good faith - I would be liable for the FSF's legal costs and damages. So if I use Apple code without a specific disclaimer I can be held responsible personally. The pointer that you provided does provide pointers to the GPL, APSL, and LGPL but it does not provide a statement that all of the changes made to the code belong to Apple. FSF - can I use the code without that statement? Mark > Jim > > > > > Mark > > > > > > --- Jim Ingham wrote: > >> Elena, > >> > >> On Nov 7, 2003, at 8:00 AM, > >> gdb-digest-help@sources.redhat.com wrote: > >> > >>> the objc support is in gdb mainline and it has > >> been there for a while. > >>> There are some bugs still, but it was merged. > >>> Are you referring to something else? > >> > >> Yes, I was referring to the very beginnings of > >> Adam's work. Since the > >> tarball of the Apple sources were sitting on the > FSF > >> site, he naturally > >> started from there. But since they had been > sitting > >> for a while, the > >> first task he faced was reconciling the changes > in > >> the relevant areas > >> of the tarball with the changes in the FSF > sources > >> between the time the > >> tarball was dropped and when he got it. At that > >> time, we were keeping > >> pretty current with the FSF distro, so we had > done > >> this job already - > >> and the results were readily available in our CVS > >> repository. IIRC, we > >> figured out what was going on pretty quickly and > set > >> him straight, but > >> that is the sort of pointless duplication of > effort > >> that it would be > >> good to avoid. > >> > >>> > >>> Same story for the interpreter stuff which > Keith, > >> Andrew and I merged. > >>> > >> > >> I am pretty sure Keith worked from our CVS > >> repository, at least that is > >> what I urged him to do. By the time you & Andrew > >> got to it, I think > >> the work was pretty far along, so you probably > >> didn't have any need to > >> refer to our version. > >> > >>> I think we went through this before, with the > >> previoius tarball. If > >>> it's too hard a requirement, then let's forget > >> about it. We'll live > >>> with the status quo. > >> > >> It is obviously not hard but I worry it is likely > to > >> be > >> counter-productive. That was what we "went > through > >> before" and the > >> event somewhat justified my concerns. > >> > >> Pointing folks at our CVS repository is much > easier, > >> and we even have > >> anonymous access now for those who don't want to > >> give out their e-mail > >> addresses... Plus then they have all the > benefits > >> of CVS in trying to > >> figure out why we did all the screwy things we > >> did... > >> > >> Jim > >> > > > _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- > >> Jim Ingham > >> > >> jingham@apple.com > >> Developer Tools - gdb > >> > > > > > _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- > Jim Ingham > > jingham@apple.com > Developer Tools - gdb >