From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx.kolabnow.com (mx.kolabnow.com [95.128.36.41]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 051323857812 for ; Sun, 11 Apr 2021 23:29:24 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 051323857812 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=appliantology.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=rodgert@appliantology.com Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by ext-mx-out002.mykolab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 436CEDAB; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 01:29:22 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kolabnow.com; h= message-id:references:in-reply-to:subject:subject:from:from:date :date:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type :mime-version:received:received:received; s=dkim20160331; t= 1618183761; x=1619998162; bh=X/XIhVt5hp6rkcI8Ic0FALElS9e7W03/Pls 3BlamAaA=; b=Jv9grrgBrSRFuHrKQMRnggujfmEMTnzgZuk3i/jfoxdNEbLufnu Gcd3uUnTIu7rIZ1YkXRwVOre42OProZAabv6jkhVHTjVFN60snX3ukjym9d8t7f3 Y6t6EbkXCYF3omh6AJoaBfyykg1Wk3gX/1mTXOr+ldDm9SWHvb3Ionu4CjFL6YdL 5RiX9kQLGhIthtcp4haJCHAwf/H8iBBihr7MIzhQxWXjr6YviRDsOJkX4CtcMgZY sVIb5uNaiebjVhu0aJHvDWZVVCheAjztSmi5USSSvNwyAezAwBBcdN2OS+0VLPBy yS4EIdkfApw19Y8CwVNjK+fyI9fbRtqHoCe6ApAbYIOJTxNXXpWBe7tLMI6M+WqJ rHdS5LRd6yvEony3EiaSREHyNSiiv6lRl+CxcOLTcG/6JdPb21HACQtnnTuaVWVC hcVKmLYn8eoZvjFP6fKaskamuvDgLo5/c2eqbdm6l+CHwNZ4eA6Y/di4+kKKULQ/ ssd09FMCqnWlrL87O3oVzta4uLuLpuaWBTKA7i6hEZstCZHT7b3Jr7+lRfeTOjOD y6deq0pg3k9C+EsXpdVF9e6nzFGHe+uDqPtYL9EfgJIa/p3sj29b2iZ76RSM7CyQ LAUJn7lgYx68syNZmZuRSVKeb2Q+R+th2HnwgvT3NkbbkvhJPdQoaftA= X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mykolab.com X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_NONE, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from mx.kolabnow.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ext-mx-out002.mykolab.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tWxzF4J9Bz7x; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 01:29:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from int-mx002.mykolab.com (unknown [10.9.13.2]) by ext-mx-out002.mykolab.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 841F81AB; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 01:29:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from int-subm002.mykolab.com (unknown [10.9.37.2]) by int-mx002.mykolab.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B0284180; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 01:29:20 +0200 (CEST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2021 16:29:19 -0700 From: Thomas Rodgers To: Alexandre Oliva Cc: David Malcolm via Gcc Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF In-Reply-To: References: <86544bc2-f04f-3c9b-e5cd-c5dde957d8aa@in2p3.fr> <127e43d087ea286ff809403ef8ca4a70c1ccb45e.camel@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1d5297e7e79f11e52cf81e6597ba5f49@appliantology.com> X-Sender: rodgert@appliantology.com X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2021 23:29:26 -0000 On 2021-04-11 15:23, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> On Apr 11, 2021, Thomas Rodgers wrote: >> >> On 2021-04-11 12:30, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote: >> >> AFAIK, you actually have no real say on who the company to whom you >> sold your services assigns *their* copyrights to. >> That statement is certainly not true with me and my employer. It is >> very much *my* decision. > Interesting... I made my statement above because I couldn't find > David's assignment on file. This told me he's covered by Red Hat's > assignment, which supported my statement. > Now, I can't find an assignment on file for you either. > What gives? 1) I *should* have an assignment on file with the FSF (I certainly have an email trail in my archives on the matter that indicated such, however..). The paperwork was initiated before I started at Red Hat, my sense of the process was it's a disorganized shit show at the FSF for processing these things (or was at the time so who knows, maybe it's better now?, but I suspect not...for fairly obvious reasons) and I didn't actively pursue confirmation that everything was fully set, because I had RH's blanket assignment to operate under and I didn't have any expectation I'd need to deal with a separate assignment any time soon at that point for work on libstdc++. 2) So, I have done my libstdc++ work to date under RH's assignment to the FSF. Before that happened, however, I did work as a Red Hat employee to bring what was a the time, Intel's standalone C++ parallel algorithms implementation into a state where it could be contributed to libstdc++ as Intel had offered. Intel *also* offered the implementation to libc++. The work I did to bring the implementation in line with the requirements for being part of the standard library is largely the same between libstdc++ and libc++, and it was decided that we'd contribute the work to the LLVM project and relicense under those terms. Then I'd contribute *that* relicensed work to libstdc++. So, to this point, no work had been done in the libstdc++ codebase, just Intel's upstream repo. This required Intel's lawyers to get a copyright assignment from me. This in turn required me to talk to Red Hat's lawyers. Where upon I learned, as long as Red Hat employees' work is done under an approved open source/free software license, Red Hat does not assert ownership over the work. As a result, Red Hat confirmed they had no involvement in relicensing the work that they had paid for. This is not a common situation with corporate work, I grant you. But it is very much the case with Red Hat's employee contributions that Red Hat does not itself assert ownership of the work they do. This means, in particular, that it is the decision of the Red Hat folks who work on GCC to continue doing so under the current terms, or, as Jonathan has indicated, to not do it under those terms.