On 22-Mar-14, at 9:38 PM, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote:
On Wednesday 12 March 2014 19:10:25 John David Anglin wrote:
[snip]
I'm fully willing to make the contribution available under any "GNU
License Terms".
Or BSD-license? Would that help? (Maybe not because of the copyright
licensing?)
I have no objection to this approach and could try to send a signed
email on the
weekend. It's something I've never done before.
OK, then let's try with an unsigned mail to this address
(741190@...) stating
that you put the patch under a BSD license. If we then get the
requirement to
get it signed we will see what to do.
Will do tomorrow. Sorry for the delay.
I don't understand the copyright situation for these files. It is
my
understanding
that Helge contributed the code that is being removed in my patch.
The AVR32
header that is copied has a Digia copyright. Indeed, every file that
I looked at has
a Digia copyright.
AVR32? OK, did you write this patch or did you just copied another
header from
Qt source and applied it to parisc? In case you have done the
latest, did you
modify anything? Please try to be as verbose as possible, it will
certainly be
the best for all of us :-D
I did not write the new qatomic_parisc.h header file.
I deleted the old qatomic_parisc.h file, copied qatomic_avr32.h to
qatomic_parisc.h and
changed all instances of "AVR32" to "PARISC" to ensure that the
included header is unique
to parisc. Only three lines are changed in the original avr32 header:
#ifndef QATOMIC_AVR32_H to #ifndef QATOMIC_PARISC_H
#define QATOMIC_AVR32_H to #define QATOMIC_PARISC_H
#endif // QATOMIC_AVR32_H to #endif // QATOMIC_PARISC_H
Thus, there is no functional difference between the AVR32 and PARISC
implementations.
I understand that m68k is using a similar approach to enable Qt
support. I learned this
in a message posted by Thorsten Glaser a few months ago, but I haven't
seen a m68k
patch. I believe the message is in a Debian bug report. This is what
led me to develop
the change.
WRT copyright: if you substantially modify a file you also get a
copyright
right, except the changes are trivial or come from well defined data.
I would prefer not to have copyright on the modified files because of
the
commercial licensing of Qt.
I believe the changes are trivial and simply revert to the atomic
implementation
used by all other architectures.
Regards,
Dave
--
John David Anglin dave.ang...@bell.net
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
