Re: Apple's Objective-C language patch

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313@ges.redhat.com>]

> On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 11:49:11PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
> 
>> Believe it or not, very recently added to my things to do today list is 
>> to get an answer to the question: can a third party take random 
>> Apple/GDB sources and contribute them to the FSF.
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking for all of Apple as its duly appointed representative in
> all things gdb related (heh heh), I declare yes!  Yes, I tell you!

I know.  and I believe this was was the likely intent.  Just need to 
check that this is what Apple actually signed up to -> I need to ask a 
lawyer with the actual paper work in front of them to give a nod.

This doesn't stop you creating a new tarball and/or similar.

> Seriously though, we've got a blanket assignment on file at the
> FSF for gcc and gdb, and the only reason the code isn't getting
> submitted is because of time being spent on other activities by
> the two Apple gdb developers.
> 
> If there are contributors who want to help but don't want to mess
> with Apple's anoncvs server I'd be willing to tar up another copy
> of our sources (Klee merged it just a couple weeks ago with the
> FSF sources), but this isn't the sort of thing I'd want to do on
> a frequent basis..
> 
> 
> Jason
> 
> PS- if that third party developer does do nonobvious/nontrivial
> changes to the patches to get them approved in FSF-gdb, I'd imagine
> the third party developer would technically need an FSF assignment
> on file before they could be accepted.

Yes.  This is why both Adam (objective-c) and Aidan (Ada) have an FSF 
assignment.

Andrew