From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30750 invoked by alias); 26 Aug 2005 10:02:04 -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 30556 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Aug 2005 10:01:11 -0000 Received: from host217-40-213-68.in-addr.btopenworld.com (HELO SERRANO.CAM.ARTIMI.COM) (217.40.213.68) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:01:11 +0000 Received: from mace ([192.168.1.25]) by SERRANO.CAM.ARTIMI.COM with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 26 Aug 2005 11:01:08 +0100 From: "Dave Korn" To: Subject: RE: [RFC] syntax highlighting Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:02:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <430E36D6.4050504@sakuraindustries.com> Message-ID: X-SW-Source: 2005-q3/txt/msg00088.txt.bz2 ----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. cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today....