From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13956 invoked by alias); 20 Apr 2011 16:19:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 13946 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Apr 2011 16:19:27 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 16:19:13 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CAF02BB0FC; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 12:19:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id RZjh8UMAgSjX; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 12:19:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0B502BB0F9; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 12:19:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 15B62145614; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 09:19:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 16:19:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: "Jose E. Marchesi" Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Work on the SIS ERC32 Emulator Message-ID: <20110420161910.GN21392@adacore.com> References: <87k4erg3ip.fsf@gnu.org> <20110418163319.GE2402@adacore.com> <8762qbseb0.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8762qbseb0.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-04/txt/msg00117.txt.bz2 > Ok. I though the policy was different for the sims, since they are full > of non-FSF copyrighted code. All right, I have to talk with my Employer > about this. I am pretty familiar with the copyright assignment process > with the FSF, but my Employer is not and it may take some time. We failed to follow the normal guidelines, and I've heard the reason for that in some of the cases, but that was a long time ago. IMO, that was a mistake, for several reasons I don't want to detail here. However, as you have noticed, because the FSF is not the copyright holder of some of the files, we couldn't update the license to GPLv3. > Do you plan to upgrade the files under 'sis' from GPLv2+ to GPLv3+? I only see 2 "sis" files: erc32/sis.[hc]. Are these the files you are referring to? I don't know how "easy" it's going to be doing that upgrade, since the FSF does not hold the copyright to these files. I don't think we can upgrade the license on our own, can we? -- Joel