From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14853 invoked by alias); 26 Aug 2005 20:22:18 -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 14832 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Aug 2005 20:22:13 -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; Fri, 26 Aug 2005 20:22:13 +0000 Received: by cgf.cx (Postfix, from userid 201) id 2BA354A8844; Fri, 26 Aug 2005 16:22:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 20:22:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: insight@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC] syntax highlighting Message-ID: <20050826202212.GA4413@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Mail-Followup-To: insight@sources.redhat.com References: <430E36D6.4050504@sakuraindustries.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-SW-Source: 2005-q3/txt/msg00089.txt.bz2 On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 11:01:05AM +0100, Dave Korn wrote: >----Original Message---- >>From: Steven Johnson >>Sent: 25 August 2005 22:24 > >>Which would support an on going position of all major changes be in >>their own files, that are copyright assigned to the FSF, just like >>normal GDB. Then only trivial changes (hooks and the like) are in the >>Redhat code. Then (in the "dream of one day") that code wouldnt be a >>problem for an assignment. It would also be possible, that a specific >>comment could be put in such a file stating that the hooks to this code >>have also been assigned to the FSF, so that there is even less of a >>problem. >> >>Also, it would mean if one day someone took the view or re-implementing >>all the Redhat copyright code, they wouldnt have to re-implement the >>contributed stuff. > >You know, it occurs to me to wonder whether new contributions could be >assigned jointly to redhat and the fsf. So, that would be double the amount of paperwork, then? cgf