Request for clarification on how a contribution to gcc can be made

Request for clarification on how a contribution to gcc can be made

[Thomas Klein]

Hello

To me it looks like that what is described in the online document 
<http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html>  is either not correct or is being 
misinterpreted at least by me.
It's not clear to me at which point the FSF is trusting an individual 
(or organization or company) and why it is mistrusting an individual per 
default.
Is there a way to suggest a code changes.
What kind of paper work is required for small code changes and what for 
huge code changes.
If a potential change is reviewed and accepted by a maintainer, who has 
to commit the change and when are they made.
(In assumption the person who is asking for a change usually did not 
have svn write permission.)
A clarification at GCC side would reduce frustration for people like me.

Regards
   Thomas

Re: Request for clarification on how a contribution to gcc can be made

[Tobias Burnus]

On 12/13/2010 07:27 PM, Thomas Klein wrote:
> It's not clear to me at which point the FSF is trusting an individual
> (or organization or company) and why it is mistrusting an individual per
> default.

My understanding is that the FSF wants to own the code completely,* 
which allows it to re-license the code, e.g. to use comments of GPL code 
for generated sections in FDL-licensed documents (or some application 
like that). In order to do so, the FSF needs a copyright transfer 
agreement of either an individual or of a entity/company for all its 
employees. If the patch is small and trivial enough to be not 
copyrightable, it can be included without copyright agreement. I think 
typically patches below 10 lines are regarded as obvious.


> Is there a way to suggest a code changes.

Fill a bugreport - in doubt (no licence agreement but nontrivial patch) 
do NOT attach a patch. (If you do, you / copyright law might make it 
more complicated to create a patch, which might be included.)

> What kind of paper work is required for small code changes and what for
> huge code changes.

Trivial _and_ small patch: None. Otherwise, the normal licence agreement.

> If a potential change is reviewed and accepted by a maintainer, who has
> to commit the change and when are they made.

Well, usually the reviewer does the commit after approval. (It helps to 
state that one does not have commit rights - otherwise, it is assumed 
that one has it.) If there has not been a review - or no committal after 
approval: Simply ping the patch. Usually, patch review is relatively 
quick - but sometimes one needs several pings.


Regarding the copyright assignment procedures: I also found it a bit 
complicated and inconvenient, but I can understand the FSF. In any case: 
The GCC follows this procedure and, thus, one currently needs to adhere 
to it. If one only needs a signature of oneself (no employer such as the 
university or research institution), the procedure can be relatively 
quickly: One sends in (by email) a small form, FSF sends then a form via 
mail ("snail mail") to you, which you sign and send back. Then you get 
the counter-signed form as PDF. In my case, the procedure took about 10 
days, which is relatively quick. In unlucky cases (slow FSF, slow mail, 
lost forms, form wandering upwards the hierarchy at your employer) it 
can take months.

Tobias

* While the FSF wants to own the code completely, you keep also the 
rights on your code (except for allowing the FSF to also own the code) - 
which means you can still integrate it in, e.g., closed source software 
under whatever licence. In special cases, the FSF also accepts not to 
own the code - but those are special cases, which need to be explicitly 
discussed with the FSF.

Re: Request for clarification on how a contribution to gcc can be made

[Robert Dewar]

On 12/13/2010 12:57 PM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> On 12/13/2010 07:27 PM, Thomas Klein wrote:
>> It's not clear to me at which point the FSF is trusting an individual
>> (or organization or company) and why it is mistrusting an individual per
>> default.
>
> My understanding is that the FSF wants to own the code completely,*
> which allows it to re-license the code, e.g. to use comments of GPL code
> for generated sections in FDL-licensed documents (or some application
> like that). In order to do so, the FSF needs a copyright transfer
> agreement of either an individual or of a entity/company for all its
> employees. If the patch is small and trivial enough to be not
> copyrightable, it can be included without copyright agreement. I think
> typically patches below 10 lines are regarded as obvious.

this is not a 100% correct summary of the FSF assignment document. I 
suggest reading this document to find out exactly what the conditions 
are. They by no means result in the FSF "owning the code completely".

> * While the FSF wants to own the code completely, you keep also the
> rights on your code (except for allowing the FSF to also own the code) -
> which means you can still integrate it in, e.g., closed source software
> under whatever licence. In special cases, the FSF also accepts not to
> own the code - but those are special cases, which need to be explicitly
> discussed with the FSF.

Re: Request for clarification on how a contribution to gcc can be made

[Ian Lance Taylor]

Thomas Klein <th.r.klein@web.de> writes:

> To me it looks like that what is described in the online document
> <http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html>  is either not correct or is
> being misinterpreted at least by me.
> It's not clear to me at which point the FSF is trusting an individual
> (or organization or company) and why it is mistrusting an individual
> per default.
> Is there a way to suggest a code changes.
> What kind of paper work is required for small code changes and what
> for huge code changes.
> If a potential change is reviewed and accepted by a maintainer, who
> has to commit the change and when are they made.
> (In assumption the person who is asking for a change usually did not
> have svn write permission.)
> A clarification at GCC side would reduce frustration for people like me.

Can you suggest specific items that need to be clarified?  I'm not sure
how to move from your comments to changes in the documentation.

E.g., you say:

> It's not clear to me at which point the FSF is trusting an individual
> (or organization or company) and why it is mistrusting an individual
> per default.

When I look at http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html , it seems fairly
clear that there are "Legal Prerequisites" which must be satisfied for
the FSF to trust an individual.  It seems clear that the requirements
come from the FSF, not from the GCC project, and the web page links to
the FSF site for an explanation.

So, while we certainly want to improve the documentation, I think some
more specific suggestions will help us do so.  Thanks.

Ian