From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23044 invoked by alias); 6 Apr 2017 13:23:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 23031 invoked by uid 89); 6 Apr 2017 13:23:03 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:792 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 76BFD61D37 Authentication-Results: ext-mx10.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx10.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=fweimer@redhat.com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com 76BFD61D37 Subject: Re: [PATCH v3][BZ 21340] add support for POSIX_SPAWN_SETSID To: Zack Weinberg References: <20170405054116.9007-1-quae@daurnimator.com> <75eb12d0-a3f1-2b37-90d5-0a9a3f7f9a99@redhat.com> Cc: Daurnimator , GNU C Library From: Florian Weimer Message-ID: <2be243b1-26b6-9608-61cf-4c6638dd01c7@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2017 13:23:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2017-04/txt/msg00105.txt.bz2 On 04/06/2017 03:22 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote: > On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: >> On 04/05/2017 01:01 PM, Daurnimator wrote: >> >>>> You aren't listed in MAINTAINERS on the wiki. Do you have a GNU >>>> copyright >>>> assignment on file? >>> >>> I do not. >> >> Would you be willing to assign copyright for this and future changes? > > It would obviously be better to have a copyright assignment, but this > particular patch may be uncopyrightable on the grounds that there is > no other way to implement the specification. I think if I had been > given the assignment I would have written token-for-token identical > code. This argument does not apply to the test case. Thanks, Florian