On 4 May 2010 09:12, Theodore Papadopoulo
theodore.papadopo...@sophia.inria.fr wrote:
- Code complexity: Doing even the simplest stuff in gcc requires quite some
time to a newcomer.
Do you have any suggestion how this could be enhanced? We know that
better documentation may help, but at some
On 04/28/2010 12:33 AM, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
1) The back-and-forth is too much for casual contributors. If it is
more effort to do the legal work than to submit the first patch,
then they will never submit any patch at all.
Please do not exaggerate, if people have time for
[trimming Cc list]
It wouldn't be worth my time and I have trouble understanding how
I could demonstrate personal loss making the law suit worth persuing in
the first place.
Perhaps because you know the code better than anyone else, so you
could provide paid support on that derivative as
To stay US-centric, have a look at:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html
Any law that makes something illegal has to define the available
penalties associated.
You are confusing criminal and civil law. What you say is certainly true
for criminal law, where the other party is
On 04/27/2010 03:46 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
This is all relatively easily handled under the copyright policy on
the academic side of the house for students and faculty.
Unless it's institutional work... I was in the same boat during my
own Ph.D. studies, cherrypicking what to send for
And how are potential contributors supposed to know this?
They're really not. The fundamental problem here is that this area of
the law is not only very complicated, but is really all guesswork
since there are few, if any, relevant cases. Moreover, this is an
area of the law
Alfred M. Szmidt a...@gnu.org writes:
That is more or less what a potentional contributor gets via email
when submitting a patch. I don't see how a web form would make things
different.
True, but I think it would make a significant difference if the web
form could be filled out online
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 21:03, Mark Mielke m...@mark.mielke.cc wrote:
They can take a copy of your code and modify it, but at no time does your
original code become non-free. As long as people continue to copy from your
free version of the code, they can continue to use it for free.
The GPL
That is more or less what a potentional contributor gets via
email when submitting a patch. I don't see how a web form would
make things different.
True, but I think it would make a significant difference if the web
form could be filled out online without requiring a piece of
On 27 April 2010 22:45, Alfred M. Szmidt a...@gnu.org wrote:
That is more or less what a potentional contributor gets via
email when submitting a patch. I don't see how a web form would
make things different.
True, but I think it would make a significant difference if the web
As for flexible, it seems clear that the current form is not
sufficiently personalized, which makes it more difficult to get it
signed by an employer.
If you need something specific, you should contact le...@gnu.org.
They are quite flexible, I do not know where people got the idea that
If you need something specific, you should contact le...@gnu.org.
They are quite flexible, I do not know where people got the idea that
they are not.
You're missing the point. If flexibilty isn't the DEFAULT people
won't know about it and will think it doesn't exist and complain. I
strongly
On 27 April 2010 23:27, Alfred M. Szmidt a...@gnu.org wrote:
As for flexible, it seems clear that the current form is not
sufficiently personalized, which makes it more difficult to get it
signed by an employer.
If you need something specific, you should contact le...@gnu.org.
They are
People will always find reasons to complain, but most people (and
companies) seem to be happy with how the copyright assignments look
today.
1) The back-and-forth is too much for casual contributors. If it is
more effort to do the legal work than to submit the first patch,
then they will never submit any patch at all.
Please do not exaggerate, if people have time for threads like these,
then they have time to send a short
On 04/25/2010 06:05 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Michael Witten mfwit...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 11:33, Richard Kenner
If I submit a patch to the GCC project---necessitating an assignment
of the copyright to the FSF---then can the people of the
On 04/25/2010 11:27 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
On 26/04/2010 01:12, Mark Mielke wrote:
The real reason for FSF copyright assignment is control. The FSF wants to
control GCC.
Yes. Specifically, they want to be able to enforce the GPL. Since only the
copyright holder can license code to
On 04/25/2010 11:44 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
On 26/04/2010 04:30, Richard Kenner wrote:
Yes. Specifically, they want to be able to enforce the GPL. Since only the
copyright holder can license code to anyone, whether under GPL or whatever
terms, FSF has to hold the copyright, or it can't sue
On 04/26/2010 12:31 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Mark Mielkem...@mark.mielke.cc writes:
Wouldn't contributing a patch to be read by the person who will be
solving the problem, but without transferring of rights, introduce
risk or liability for the FSF and GCC?
I thought clean room
Alfred M. Szmidt writes:
You are still open to liabilities for your own project, if you
incorporate code that you do not have copyright over, the original
copyright holder can still sue you
That's irrlevent. By signing the FSF's document I'd be doing nothing
to reduce anyone's ability to sue me,
On 04/26/2010 07:20 AM, Richard Kenner wrote:
[1] France in my case, probably Europe in general. What you do in
your free time is yours by default, land grab clauses are not
accepted, and it's only when you work at home on things you also
do at work that questions can be asked.
That's true in
On 04/26/2010 11:23 AM, Mark Mielke wrote:
Personally, this whole issue is problematic to me. I really can't see
why I would ever sue somebody for using software that I had declared
free.
Because (a derivative of) it is being made nonfree?
It wouldn't be worth my time and I have trouble
On 26 April 2010 07:06, Chris Lattner clatt...@apple.com wrote:
I find it amusing the willingness of various developers to debate the
veracity of the LLVM policies, but the simulataneous (apparent) unwillingness
to address GCC's (perceived) problems. Why not spend your time helping
If I have the rights to re-license software, and I re-license the
software, why do I not have permission to enforce these rights?
Because you have the permission to re-DISTRIBUTE (not re-LICENSE) the
software and nothing else. Note that I changed right to permission.
The owner of the software
Years ago, I was asked to sign one of these documents for some public
domain code I wrote that I never intended to become part of a FSF project.
Someone wanted to turn it a regular GNU project with a GPL license,
configure scripts, a cute acronym and all that stuff. I said no.
It's public
You are free to keep discussing this ad-infinitum. But I really think
that this discussion is not adding anything new. It seems the same old
controversy that is beyond GCC. And it is getting confusing, hard to
follow, and at the end, all your effort will be lost in the archives
and help no one.
Years ago, I was asked to sign one of these documents for some
public domain code I wrote that I never intended to become part
of a FSF project. Someone wanted to turn it a regular GNU
project with a GPL license, configure scripts, a cute acronym and
all that stuff. I said
You are still open to liabilities for your own project, if you
incorporate code that you do not have copyright over, the original
copyright holder can still sue you
That's irrlevent. By signing the FSF's document I'd be doing
nothing to reduce anyone's ability to sue me, I could
If I have the rights to re-license software, and I re-license the
software, why do I not have permission to enforce these rights?
Because you have the permission to re-DISTRIBUTE (not re-LICENSE)
the software and nothing else.
In case of GCC, you have the explicit permission to
Wouldn't contributing a patch to be read by the person who will be
solving the problem, but without transferring of rights, introduce
risk or liability for the FSF and GCC?
That risk always exists; some level of trust has to exist somewhere.
It's unclear whether the LLVM-style implicit copyright assignment
is really enforceable, and this certainly isn't a forum to debate
it. In any case, it doesn't really matter, because the only reason
copyright needs to be assigned (AFAIK) is to change the license.
This is not the only
Ross Ridge writes:
Years ago, I was asked to sign one of these documents for some public
domain code I wrote that I never intended to become part of a FSF project.
Someone wanted to turn it a regular GNU project with a GPL license,
configure scripts, a cute acronym and all that stuff. I said
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 12:00:13 -0400
Alfred M. Szmidt a...@gnu.org wrote:
Given that there are plenty of high-profile projects out there
which seem to be entirely safe in the absence of copyright
assignment policies, why, exactly, does GCC need one to be legally
safe?
I do not
Given that there are plenty of high-profile projects out there
which seem to be entirely safe in the absence of copyright
assignment policies, why, exactly, does GCC need one to be
legally safe?
I do not know what high-profile projects you are refering to
On Apr 26, 2010, at 8:11 AM, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
It's unclear whether the LLVM-style implicit copyright assignment
is really enforceable, and this certainly isn't a forum to debate
it. In any case, it doesn't really matter, because the only reason
copyright needs to be assigned
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 12:50:14 -0400
Alfred M. Szmidt a...@gnu.org wrote:
If with kernel you mean Linux, then they require you to agree to an
type of assignment (though not in paper form), same for git.
No.
What you agree to is the developers certificate of origin (DCO), which
says you have
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Jonathan Corbet cor...@lwn.net wrote:
I would not presume to tell the GCC project what its policy should be;
that's a decision for the people who are doing the work.
Actually it's not. The FSF sets the rules, and you either play along
or you don't do the work
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 7:03 PM, Steven Bosscher stevenb@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Jonathan Corbet cor...@lwn.net wrote:
I would not presume to tell the GCC project what its policy should be;
that's a decision for the people who are doing the work.
Actually it's
Mark Mielke m...@mark.mielke.cc writes:
What are clean room implementations for if not for avoiding copyright
violation?
Avoiding contract violations such as promises to keep source code
secret. A strict clean room implementation also makes it clear that
no copyright violation could have
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 09:53:51AM -0700, Chris Lattner wrote:
w.r.t. hoarding, I'll point out that (in the context of GCC) being
able to enforce copyright is pretty useless IMO. While you can
force someone to release their code, the GPL doesn't force them to
assign the copyright to the FSF.
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 07:03:25PM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
There is so much negativism about a mere nuisance in this thread. It's
a shame, but I guess it's just more proof that negative discussions
about GCC are more popular than positive ones.
Seriously, depending on the country it's
Chris Lattner wrote:
To be perfectly clear, I'm not suggesting that the FSF or GCC
project change their policies.
Sure. But others have and that's what this thread is all about.
Jonathan Corbet wrote:
If the copyright holders don't wish to sue, then, one presumes, they
are not unhappy
Chris Lattner clatt...@apple.com writes:
w.r.t. hoarding, I'll point out that (in the context of GCC) being
able to enforce copyright is pretty useless IMO. While you can
force someone to release their code, the GPL doesn't force them to
assign the copyright to the FSF. In practice this
Jonathan Corbet cor...@lwn.net writes:
What you agree to is the developers certificate of origin (DCO), which
says you have the right to contribute the code to the kernel. No
copyright assignment takes place. Trust me, I have thousands of lines
of code in the kernel, and the copyright
On 26 April 2010 21:28, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
Jonathan Corbet cor...@lwn.net writes:
What you agree to is the developers certificate of origin (DCO), which
says you have the right to contribute the code to the kernel. No
copyright assignment takes place. Trust me, I have
And how are potential contributors supposed to know this?
They're really not. The fundamental problem here is that this area of
the law is not only very complicated, but is really all guesswork
since there are few, if any, relevant cases. Moreover, this is an
area of the law where details
On Apr 26, 2010, at 12:23 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Chris Lattner clatt...@apple.com writes:
w.r.t. hoarding, I'll point out that (in the context of GCC) being
able to enforce copyright is pretty useless IMO. While you can
force someone to release their code, the GPL doesn't force them
Chris Lattner clatt...@apple.com writes:
On Apr 26, 2010, at 12:23 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Again, just for the record. History shows that this is not entirely
useless. People at NeXT wrote the Objective C frontend to GCC. They
did not intend to release the source code. The FSF
On Apr 26, 2010, at 1:53 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Beyond that, the changes to support Objective C 2.0 (and later) have
never been merged back in, despite being published and widely
available under the GPL. Also, the GNU runtime and the NeXT
runtimes are wildly incompatible, and the ObjC
On 04/26/2010 10:53 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Chris Lattnerclatt...@apple.com writes:
This is a often repeated example, but you're leaving out the big
part of the story (at least as far as I know). The license *did
not* force the ObjC frontend to be merged back into GCC, there were
other
Paolo Bonzini bonz...@gnu.org writes:
And even in the US we lost a patch for 4.5 due to a problem with the
disclaimer. I read this recently on gcc-patches:
The FSF has a personal copyright assignment for me, but I could not
get one from my employer at the time, Stanford (according to
On 04/26/2010 03:23 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Chris Lattnerclatt...@apple.com writes
w.r.t. hoarding, I'll point out that (in the context of GCC) being
able to enforce copyright is pretty useless IMO. While you can
force someone to release their code, the GPL doesn't force them to
assign
I can say from my 15 years of experience working here that in general
Stanford *hates* signing legal documents. This is true even of
procurement contracts. Stanford negotiates legalities very aggressively,
negotiates vendor contracts very aggressively, and does not generally sign
things
Nobody can take your code and make it non-free.
They can take a copy of your code and modify it, but at no time does
your original code become non-free. As long as people continue to copy
from your free version of the code, they can continue to use it for
free.
Correct. A perhaps
I think anybody who truly believes in the *merit* of free software,
should be approaching companies who do not understand the merit with a
business plan, not a class action law suit.
Most certainly. And a number of companies have relicensed their software
under the GPL when presented with a
On 04/26/2010 11:11 AM, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
If I have the rights to re-license software, and I re-license the
software, why do I not have permission to enforce these rights?
Because you have the permission to re-DISTRIBUTE (not re-LICENSE)
the software and nothing else.
However, that isn't only/quite what I meant. My understanding of
copyright law is that it *only* protects distribution rights of the
works. For example, as long as I use the software internally within a
single legal entity (company, house hold, or whatever is acceptable to
the courts), I
On 04/26/2010 07:41 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 04/26/2010 11:23 AM, Mark Mielke wrote:
Personally, this whole issue is problematic to me. I really can't see
why I would ever sue somebody for using software that I had declared
free.
Because (a derivative of) it is being made nonfree?
How
Mark Mielke m...@mark.mielke.cc writes:
This presumes that NeXT would not have discovered the value of free
software and done the right thing eventually anyways. I think anybody
who truly believes in free software should believe in it for practical
reasons. It's not just a religion - it's the
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 02:00:30PM -0400, Richard Kenner wrote:
Olivier Galibert wrote:
You can't force some entity to release source code they have
copyright to, that's not part of the legal remedies that are
available to a judge.
What makes you say that?
The law, *duh*
Why couldn't
On 25 April 2010 06:20, Chris Lattner clatt...@apple.com wrote:
On Apr 23, 2010, at 3:35 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On 24 April 2010 00:18, Alfred M. Szmidt a...@gnu.org wrote:
The disclaimers are legally necessary though, the FSF needs a paper
trail in the case your employer comes back
Joel Sherrill:
I don't know how divergent rdos from any other OS that is
not self-hosted and is cross-compiled but there shouldn't
be 100s or 1000s of patches required to support an OS on gcc
unless you have a divergent object format or are including
a new CPU.
Also you haven't mentioned two
Hello Leif,
* Leif Ekblad wrote on Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 12:56:21PM CEST:
The primary issue I had was that some basic configuration was
never updated to GCC (libtool). Because this was the place where the
targets and stuff was defined, it was not even possible to submit specific
patches in the
BTW, in this aspect there is no difference between GCC and LLVM. The
latter also requires to assign copyright to the University of
Illinois. If you don't have a copyright disclaimer before contributing
to LLVM, you are exposing yourself to some future legal troubles.
On what do you base
So we need more patch reviewers. How can that be addressed?
The situation has improved in this area since the Reviewer position was
introduced a few years ago though.
It is also important to make more effective use of the patch
reviewers we already have. What could be done to make the
Eliminate the easy mistakes in patches. GCC uses strict coding conventions,
including formatting and commenting conventions, so not following them is a
mistake that will be flagged as such. Fortunately this is easy to correct,
you don't even need to read the (whole) documentation, just
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Richard Kenner
ken...@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu wrote:
Eliminate the easy mistakes in patches. GCC uses strict coding conventions,
including formatting and commenting conventions, so not following them is a
mistake that will be flagged as such. Fortunately this is
I don't like self-advertising, but ...
* Steven Bosscher wrote on Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 03:05:45PM CEST:
Perhaps it is possible to create some kind of check-patch script for
GCC too, e.g. one that checks the following things at least:
* ChangeLog presence
* ChangeLog format and completeness
*
On Apr 25, 2010, at 2:47 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On 25 April 2010 06:20, Chris Lattner clatt...@apple.com wrote:
On Apr 23, 2010, at 3:35 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On 24 April 2010 00:18, Alfred M. Szmidt a...@gnu.org wrote:
The disclaimers are legally necessary though, the
On 25 April 2010 16:55, Chris Lattner clatt...@apple.com wrote:
On Apr 25, 2010, at 2:47 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On 25 April 2010 06:20, Chris Lattner clatt...@apple.com wrote:
On Apr 23, 2010, at 3:35 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On 24 April 2010 00:18, Alfred M. Szmidt
On Apr 25, 2010, at 7:59 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On what do you base these assertions? Every point seems wrong to me.
Quoting from the link: http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html
The key distinction is that contributing to LLVM does not require you to
sign a form (which
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 8:04 AM, Chris Lattner clatt...@apple.com wrote:
On Apr 25, 2010, at 7:59 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On what do you base these assertions? Every point seems wrong to me.
Quoting from the link: http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html
The key distinction is that
On Friday 23 April 2010 21:10, Richard Kenner wrote:
I've happened to be looking at a number of other free-software projects
recently (having nothing to do with compilers) and find the quality of the
code ABSOLUTELY APALLING.
That's because you didn't look at non-open code. It's no better.
On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 08:51:17 -0400
Alfred M. Szmidt a...@gnu.org wrote:
Not much can be done to either of those, the copyright assignments are
necessary to keep GCC legally safe.
Given that there are plenty of high-profile projects out there which
seem to be entirely safe in the absence of
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Jonathan Corbet cor...@lwn.net wrote:
On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 08:51:17 -0400
Alfred M. Szmidt a...@gnu.org wrote:
Not much can be done to either of those, the copyright assignments are
necessary to keep GCC legally safe.
Given that there are plenty of
On 25 April 2010 17:44, Steven Bosscher stevenb@gmail.com wrote:
IANAL but the copyright assignment is probably necessary for the FSF
to have the rights to change the license at will (within the
limitations allowed by the copyright assignment). If there are many
copyright holders, like
IANAL but the copyright assignment is probably necessary for the
FSF to have the rights to change the license at will (within the
limitations allowed by the copyright assignment). If there are many
copyright holders, like for say the linux kernel, a change of
license requires the
Not much can be done to either of those, the copyright assignments are
necessary to keep GCC legally safe.
Given that there are plenty of high-profile projects out there
which seem to be entirely safe in the absence of copyright
assignment policies, why, exactly, does GCC need
Quoting from the link: http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html
The key distinction is that contributing to LLVM does not require you to
sign a form (which isn't even publicly available) and mail it in to a busy
and high-latency organization before non-trivial patches will be accepted.
That web page is everything that there is. I am aware that this is not as
legally air-tight as the FSF disclaimer, but empirically many companies
seem to have no problem with it.
There's nothing to have a problem WITH! No assignment has taken place.
The statement on the web has no legal
That's because you didn't look at non-open code. It's no better.
Nobody said it was.
This statement carries an implicit assumption that the only barrier
for contribution to GCC is the high quality of code required.
This is not true. For one, copyright assignment requirement
is an untypical
Note that copyright assignment and being sure that the developer
has the right to contribute the code are two very different things.
Although that's true, the stated concern with the assignment document
had to do with the question of the right to contribute the code.
But I'm confused here: if
LLVM has also copyright assignment, however, it is implicit in the
patch submission.
Do they have any legal opinion which backs the claim that this sort of
implicit assignment has any legal force at all?
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 11:33, Richard Kenner
ken...@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu wrote:
There's nothing to have a problem WITH! No assignment has taken place.
The statement on the web has no legal significance whatsoever. Unless
the company SIGNS something, they still own the copyright on the code
On 25 April 2010 18:48, Michael Witten mfwit...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 11:33, Richard Kenner
ken...@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu wrote:
There's nothing to have a problem WITH! No assignment has taken place.
The statement on the web has no legal significance whatsoever. Unless
the
If I submit a patch to the GCC project---necessitating an assignment
of the copyright to the FSF---then can the people of the FSF decide
that they don't want me to distribute my own work in another project
(proprietary or otherwise)?
No, because the assignment agreement says that the FSF
The FSF copyright assignments grant you back ultimate rights to use
it in anyway you please.
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Michael Witten mfwit...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 11:33, Richard Kenner
If I submit a patch to the GCC project---necessitating an assignment
of the copyright to the FSF---then can the people of the FSF decide
that they don't want me to distribute
On the other hand, when the assignment is implicit like for LLVM, I
really don't know. You need to ask your own lawyer (not the ones from
Apple or from the U. of Illinois).
I don't believe there IS such a thing as an implicit assignment.
You either signed a contract that assigns the copyright
On 25 April 2010 17:04, Chris Lattner clatt...@apple.com wrote:
On Apr 25, 2010, at 7:59 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On what do you base these assertions? Every point seems wrong to me.
Quoting from the link: http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html
The key distinction is that
I find surprising that the U. of Illinois has such relaxed approach to
copyright. But perhaps it is also in their interest to not ask many
questions. If something goes bad, they can just sue the individual
contributor rather than dealing with the whole legal department of a
company. Even
Ralf Wildenhues ralf.wildenh...@gmx.de writes:
FWIW, I wrote vc-chlog a while ago (ships together with vc-dwim[1]) which
IMVHO is fairly accurate at creating stub ChangeLog entries if you have
Exuberant Ctags installed. Without it, updates to the GCC build system
would have been rather
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Richard Kenner
ken...@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu wrote:
I find surprising that the U. of Illinois has such relaxed approach to
copyright. But perhaps it is also in their interest to not ask many
questions. If something goes bad, they can just sue the individual
Chris Lattner clatt...@apple.com writes:
The key distinction is that contributing to LLVM does not require
you to sign a form (which isn't even publicly available) and mail it
in to a busy and high-latency organization before non-trivial
patches will be accepted.
For the record (Chris
On Apr 25, 2010, at 9:33 AM, Richard Kenner wrote:
That web page is everything that there is. I am aware that this is not as
legally air-tight as the FSF disclaimer, but empirically many companies
seem to have no problem with it.
There's nothing to have a problem WITH! No assignment has
Copying David Daney's response to contrast against it:
GCC is a mature piece of software that works really well and it is in a
programming domain which is not as well understood and for people such
as myself, I would be intimidated from the start, to delve in and expect
any contributions I
On 04/23/2010 06:18 PM, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
My personal opinion is that this legal reason is a *huge*
bottleneck against external contributions. In particular, because
you need to deal with it *before* submitting any patch, which,
given the complexity (4MLOC) and growth rate
On 04/23/2010 08:37 PM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
However, I would believe that most GCC contributors do not actively
check their patch against the US patent system (because I perceive the
US patent system to be very ill w.r.t. software). I confess I don't do
that - it would be a full time
On 04/23/2010 08:47 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Basile Starynkevitchbas...@starynkevitch.net writes:
I also never understood what would happen if I had a brain illness to
the point of submitting illegal patches (I have no idea if such things
could exist; I am supposing today that if I wrote
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Eric Botcazou ebotca...@adacore.com wrote:
So we need more patch reviewers. How can that be addressed?
The situation has improved in this area since the Reviewer position was
introduced a few years ago though.
It is also important to make more effective use
1 - 100 of 226 matches
Mail list logo
