[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> > There are several reasons why we don't want to do this. We don't want > > to have to give a savannah account to everyone that submits patches. > > We don't want to redistribute their patches from savannah while we > > don't have copyright assignments or while the maintainers have not > > judged them. > All of the above applies for patches sent to our mailing lists, what > is the difference? This issue is not solely practical. It is also legal and communicational. We must nt try to simplify that to black and white. Between having an email on a mailing list, and having something checked into our repositiry. there are similarities and differences. One difference is that thr former is something we already do sand the latter is not. Another is that having some code or text in our repository may seem different in implications -- to users or to courts. So I stand by my conclusion > > We don't want the submission of patches take up the > > savannah hackers' time. > How exactly would patches submited to a GNU project take up a Savannah > hackers time? If they are submitted via Savannah, that use of Savannah will occasionally require the savannah hackers to do something. Like any other use of Savannah. -- Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org) Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org) Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
