From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9148 invoked by alias); 10 May 2003 14:42:41 -0000 Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 9127 invoked from network); 10 May 2003 14:42:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (146.82.138.56) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 10 May 2003 14:42:40 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 19EVYx-00060R-00; Sat, 10 May 2003 09:42:59 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 19EVYV-000261-00; Sat, 10 May 2003 10:42:31 -0400 Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 14:42:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Alan Modra , binutils@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa] FRV input files Message-ID: <20030510144231.GA8030@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , Alan Modra , binutils@sources.redhat.com References: <3EB31259.8050603@redhat.com> <3EBBC4CF.6050405@redhat.com> <20030509162135.GA13595@nevyn.them.org> <3EBC4046.70003@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3EBC4046.70003@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00342.txt.bz2 On Fri, May 09, 2003 at 07:56:54PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >Andrew, can we do this differently? > > > >Something that has been mentioned several times, but I'm not sure is > >clear to you, is that these files already exist in src/cgen/cpu/. > > >Those copies are _not_ exactly the same as the ones you're adding. > >In order to make sense of this patch, could you move them to their new > >home separately from changing the license or whatever other changes are > >incorporated in the patch below? > > From the FSF's point of view, this is brand new code and, as such > should, from day one be given the correct (C) and correct license. To > do otherwize would be confusing. > > Think of this as part of a brand new port that you've never seen before. > Even though the contributor might have a separate repository containing > a very long history of changes, all that is irrelevant to the FSF. From > the FSF's point of view, the file is ``born'' the day someone > contributes it. Now that's ridiculous. Please at least post a diff from the version already _in the repository you are asking permission to commit this patch to_. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer