Re: Tracepoints functionality for local targets

[Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@hofr.at>]

> Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
>
> > It is GPL V2 and not assigned to the FSF - it was funded by Siemens AG
> > (Cooperate Technology) and Im talking to them - but it took 1 year to
> > get them to release it under the GPL and get permission to release it to
> > the public so don't expect this to happen any time soon - anyway it is a
> > supprise to me that it is insufficient to release code under the GPL V2
> > and frankly if the FSF requires copyright assignment then this is bad news
> > for free software developers
>
> The FSF requires that people assign the copyright, this keeps the
> copyright situation clear on the whole project. You have to be very
> careful in copying code, just because someone somewhere says some
> code is under the GPL does not make it so, you have to be 100% sure
> that the person owning the copyright has issued the license, and the
> way that FSF project does this is to insist on formal copyright
> assignment. No one is compelled to do such an assignment of course,
> but for the code to be part of the FSF GNU project, the FSF does
> require this assignment.

of course you need to be sure about the GPL V2 license being issued by the
copyrigth holder and not mearly me claiming this - but there is a
fundamental step from "requirement of verified free-software compliant
copyright" and requirement of assigning copyright to the FSF - the
argument of clean and assured copyright definitly does not legitimate this
policy - or atleast at this point I don't see why - could you explain
this in more detail ?

>
> > - what reason could I give any other company
> > to require the same ?
>
> The same reason that has convinced hundreds of individuals and
> major corporations to assign code. If you assign the code to the
> FSF, then it gets mainlined into the FSF development sources,
> which means your patches are continuously tested, and you don't
> have to deal with reinserting them in every new release.

I don't see the need for copyright assigment to the FSF for that - other
comparably large projects (i.e. Linux kernel) handle this properly
withouth any such policy. Assurance of legitimacy is an issue in any case
and not reduced by the filing of assigment forms in any way.

>
> If Siemens is interested in having this code be mainlined
> into the GDB sources, they have to agree to the assignment.
> If they are not interested in this, then they don't need
> to agree, and unfortunately it won't happen.

That is one oversimplified way of seeing it - but I strongly feel this is
clearly contradicting the ideas and intentions of free-software all
together which is bad for the community, notably bad for motivating
companies to support free-software and not mearly open-source.

>
> > On the other hand if the FSF has legitimate reasons
> > not to accept GPL code as it could lead to restrictions then this would
> > be the case for any commercial entity as well and be really bad news for
> > GPL all together.
>
> It's is not a matter of restrictions, just a matter of being
> careful about copyright and ownership. The GPL is not some magic
> that removes this requirement for diligence.

well - assurance of copyright and carfullness don't mandate assigment of
copyright - that is clearly coupling two unrelated problems. If I sign
the paperwork - what assurance do you have then ? If I fraudulently assign
copyrigth - what good is that ? so pleas where is the difference in
assurance of a clear and legal release under a free-software license and
the assigment requirement ? what limitations does the FSF see if I would
get Siemens to sign a statement they released the tracepoint code under
GPL V2 ?

>
> > So I still hope that the GPL V2 code would be accepted
> > by the GDB people.
>
> There does need to be an assignment for it to be incorporated
>

well - we will try to maintain it out of tree if we can get the resources
but it will not be easy.

thx!
hofrat