From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14620 invoked by alias); 4 Aug 2003 20:44:49 -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 14611 invoked from network); 4 Aug 2003 20:44:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ms-smtp-02.nyroc.rr.com) (24.92.226.49) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 Aug 2003 20:44:48 -0000 Received: from doctormoo (syr-24-24-16-120.twcny.rr.com [24.24.16.120]) by ms-smtp-02.nyroc.rr.com (8.12.5/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h74KimiY006178; Mon, 4 Aug 2003 16:44:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: by doctormoo (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1F15C44561; Mon, 4 Aug 2003 16:44:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 22:04:00 -0000 To: dewar@gnat.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [libiberty copyright assignment audit] cp-demangle.c status Message-ID: <20030804204438.GA5928@twcny.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i From: neroden@twcny.rr.com (Nathanael Nerode) X-SW-Source: 2003-08/txt/msg00230.txt.bz2 Robert Dewar said: >Note that the copyright notice has nothing to do with whether or not it >is assigned. >The actual copyright status of any file is determined independently of >any >notice in the file itself. While I what you mean, this isn't actually quite correct, as I discovered. The issue lies in copyright assignments which assign "all changes made to GCC..." or some such. In this case the question of whether the file is part of GCC becomes paramount. If the file itself claims to be part of GCC, as well as being distributed with GCC, I think that's quite sufficient to establish that the file is 'part of GCC'. If on the other hand, the file claims that it is a separate program, and does not claim that it is part of GCC, then there is some question as to whether it is in fact part of GCC or not. (Normally I would say that being distributed in the tarball for X would establish something as being 'part of X', but there are numerous examples explicitly to the contrary in the GCC tarballs.) This status affects the impact of the copyright assignment statements. :-) Gross, eh? It's the (former) absence of the 'part of GNU CC' phrase in the file which is the actual issue for the copyright assignment status, rather than the (former) claim that it was copyright CodeSourcery. >It is of course important that the notice in the file reflect >the actual status. Indeed. :-/ -- Nathanael Nerode http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html