Re: Terms for new port and other larger submissions?

[Hans-Peter Nilsson <hans-peter.nilsson@axis.com>]

> Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 17:52:58 -0500
> From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@redhat.com>

> On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 11:20:35PM +0100, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> > In due time, I believe Axis will offer a CGEN description for
> > the CRIS CPU core family.  It would be nice if it could be
> > distributed together with the other CGEN sources.  [...]
> 
> We're discussing this general issue internally.

Thanks for the heads-up!

>  One point though
> is clear: you need to think about what is to happen to the files
> generated from your cpu description.  Their inclusion in (C)FSF
> packages like binutils may be difficult if Axis is to keep that
> copyright too.

Binutils might be a bad example (there's already a non-CGEN
port); let's say sim (gdb) instead.

Assigning copyright to the FSF is no problem.  (There's a
blanket assignment in place and no problem assigning copyright
for new (C)FSF packages if requested.)  Assigning copyright to
another company is a problem.

I'm a bit puzzled: does someone think including generated files
in (C)FSF packages would be less difficult if copyright for the
CGEN CPU description is assigned to Red Hat, as was requested in
the reference?

brgds, H-P