From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16827 invoked by alias); 4 Aug 2003 17:12:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 16812 invoked from network); 4 Aug 2003 17:12:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO piper.synopsys.com) (198.182.56.5) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 Aug 2003 17:12:03 -0000 Received: (from jbuck@localhost) by piper.synopsys.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h74HBOg25262; Mon, 4 Aug 2003 10:11:24 -0700 Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 17:19:00 -0000 From: Joe Buck To: Robert Dewar Cc: aaronl@vitelus.com, s.bosscher@student.tudelft.nl, gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: GCC Message-ID: <20030804101124.G24974@synopsys.com> References: <20030731100819.AC796F2DD2@nile.gnat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20030731100819.AC796F2DD2@nile.gnat.com>; from dewar@gnat.com on Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 06:08:19AM -0400 X-SW-Source: 2003-08/txt/msg00151.txt.bz2 > > Copyright assignments. On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 06:08:19AM -0400, Robert Dewar wrote: > Please give some evidence. I think this is just a guess. In my experience, > the copyright assignment is not the issue at all. The issue is precisely > getting the patches to be well-formed, which requires quite a bit of work > and quite a bit of knowledge about the way gcc maintenance is organized. In my experience, many companies balk not at the concept of copyright assignment but rather at the patent waiver. However, the FSF successfully negotiated acceptable language with IBM, so clearly such problems can be conquered.