From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8927 invoked by alias); 25 Aug 2005 18:34:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact insight-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: insight-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 8893 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Aug 2005 18:34:12 -0000 Received: from c-24-61-23-223.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (HELO cgf.cx) (24.61.23.223) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Thu, 25 Aug 2005 18:34:12 +0000 Received: by cgf.cx (Postfix, from userid 201) id 0FCF14A8059; Thu, 25 Aug 2005 14:34:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 18:34:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: "'Th.R.Klein'" , insight@sources.redhat.com, Jon Beniston Subject: Re: [RFC] syntax highlighting Message-ID: <20050825183411.GA32066@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Mail-Followup-To: "'Th.R.Klein'" , insight@sources.redhat.com, Jon Beniston References: <430E0651.2040207@web.de> <20050825180548.A35334A8054@cgf.cx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050825180548.A35334A8054@cgf.cx> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-SW-Source: 2005-q3/txt/msg00082.txt.bz2 On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 07:05:20PM +0100, Jon Beniston wrote: >On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 07:56:33PM +0200, Th.R.Klein wrote: >>Sorry but I do not understand where I've done something that violates >>the existing copyright. > >You haven't. > >>As far as I'm interpreting this, I'm allowed to modify the source e.g. >>by adding the syntax highlighting stuff to it. > >You are. If you want to take all the source and start your own fork >that's fine. > >>Red Hat itself might have a set of rules which kind of modification >>they accept and which they will reject. > >The only reason I can see why you need to assign copyright is so that >Red Hat can license Insight under a different (non-free) license. But >maybe I'm being a tad cynical. Yes, just a tad. The FSF requires similar license transferrals for gdb and no one ever accused them of trying to provide things under a non-free license. In the Insight case, I believe that Red Hat wants to make sure that all of the code ownership is clear so that there will be no claims where a company insists that they own some snippet of code added by an employee. I believe that this is the same reason that the FSF requires similar transfer of ownership for major changes to gdb, gcc, binutils, etc. Additionally, since insight intertwines itself with gdb, I don't believe you could sell it as non-free anyway since gdb's GPL would trump any other license. cgf