Re: [RFC] syntax highlighting

[Steven Johnson <sjohnson at sakuraindustries dot com>]

Keith Seitz wrote:

> Th.R.Klein wrote:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > I've ask Vineeth if the developing of the Patch already have started.
> > Since Vineeth told me that this is not the case.
> > So I'm sending here a patch, which should carefully reviewed.
> > The method isn't the fastest but it seems OK for the moment.
>
>
> I apologize for the long delay, but I'm really conflicted on this patch.
>
> As much as I would like to see syntax highlighting, I'm not entirely 
> sure that I like the approach that has been taken. I would prefer, of 
> course, a real parser for these things. Gdb contains parsers for 
> C/C++, Java, ADA, and whatever else is supported.

Whats the story with those?  I thought it was only for expression 
passing, so you could enter expressions like the language you are 
debugging? 

> On the other hand, we have nothing today. Zippo. Nadda. That's a 
> compelling reason to take what you've kindly offered.
>
> So I guess the best compromise for me is to accept your patch, BUT, I 
> would like to see it a bit more modular, so that the parsing engine 
> can be replaced with something more efficient. I think the actual 
> parsing or regexp'ing should be done in a separate class.

I agree that it being more modular would be good.  But what is being 
offered is better than nothing, especially as it can be enabled/disabled 
as the user feels.

> Barring that, there is one more hurdle to overcome: copyright. Unlike 
> most of the patches that I see here, this patch definitely is not even 
> remotely trivial. So we need to get you (and your company if involved) 
> to sign an assignment. The problem is, that assignment is to Red Hat, 
> not the FSF, since Insight is officially owned (albeit carelessly) by 
> Red Hat.


I dont think there is any rule that says a whole file needs to be 
Copyright to a single entity.  Parts of a file can have different 
Copyright status. How you manage that efficiently and unambiguously in 
an open source project, I dont know. What I have seen in the past, in 
open source projects that use modified code from different sources, is 
headers that say things like (as an example):

# Original file Copyright Redhat (c) 2000,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005
# Portions Copyright FSF (c) 2005

Whether that is appropriate in this case is unknown.

As the whole file is distributed under the GPL, there is no impediment 
to modifying the file and having those modifications have any copyright 
you like, provided you obey the GPL.  Which is what this project does, 
so no problem.  The only reason I think the FSF insists on copyright 
assignment is so it can keep better control of its core projects, and 
litigate on infringements if required.  Otherwise it isnt required given 
the words of the GPL.  There are certainly lots of GPL projects that 
dont worry about assignment of copyright, and instead just rely on the 
words of the GPL to cover the modifications contributed by various others.

It would obviously be cleaner to separate the substantial parts out into 
separate files, and then there would be no impediment to assigning those 
files to the FSF.  Then the "hooks" in the original code would belong to 
the "insubstantial" category of change.

Steven