I don’t really think this is relevant to the topic at hand (Charlie’s personal introduction), so perhaps a new thread would be best..
What problem do you have with assigning your copyright to the FSF? -- John M. Harris, Jr. <joh...@splentity.com> Splentity Software On Thursday, April 5, 2018 8:17:59 PM EDT Brent W. Baccala wrote: > On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 7:27 PM, Samuel Thibault <samuel.thiba...@gnu.org> > > wrote: > > Brent W. Baccala, le jeu. 05 avril 2018 19:06:23 -0400, a ecrit: > > > > Yes, Mach is > > sort of an exception, because it was merely the ground for the whole > > kernel. But being BSD-licenced, it was not posing problems for future > > re-licensing. > > Well, Mach is what we're talking about now, and if being BSD-licensed > doesn't pose a problem, then why should my contributions be a problem if > they're GPL-licensed? > > Please make a decision about the 169 line patch I attached to my earlier > email. You can use it under the GPL, and I'm even willing to assign > copyright on it to the FSF. But it's not going to be "all past and future > work" on Hurd, or gnumach, or anything else. > > I think Charlie Sale deserves some clear guidance on whether or not he can > base a new tracing facility on that patch. > > agape > brent
