This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH V2] manual/string.texi: Add description of envz_remove
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Ma Shimiao <mashimiao dot fnst at cn dot fujitsu dot com>, Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 14:12:23 -0500
- Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] manual/string.texi: Add description of envz_remove
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1417004228-28019-1-git-send-email-mashimiao dot fnst at cn dot fujitsu dot com> <54F5638D dot 2060004 at cn dot fujitsu dot com> <54F58E09 dot 5090504 at redhat dot com> <54F6B969 dot 3040204 at cn dot fujitsu dot com> <54F8B951 dot 9080601 at redhat dot com> <ortwxz6m7w dot fsf at livre dot home> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1503061856380 dot 24477 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk>
On 03/06/2015 02:00 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Mar 2015, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Mar 5, 2015, "Carlos O'Donell" <email@example.com> wrote:
>>> I see no copyright assignment in place for glibc from Fujitsu.
>> I see Ma Shimiao's assignment on file since 2015-02-18. We don't need
>> an assignment from Fujitsu, as long as Fujitsu does not hold a copyright
>> over the contributed changes, and I understand the assignment process
>> has already covered that question. Is that not so?
> I don't think copyright.list recording an individual assignment carries
> any implication as to whether an employer disclaimer is also needed.
> maintain.texi says "We may also need an employer's disclaimer from the
> person's employer, which confirms that the work was not part of the
> person's job and the employer makes no claim on it. However, a copy of
> the person's employment contract, showing that the employer can't claim
> any rights to this work, is often sufficient.". So either there should be
> a disclaimer in copyright.list, or the FSF should confirm that they've
> seen the employment contract and a disclaimer isn't needed or that the "Do
> you have an employer who might have a basis to claim to own your changes?
> Do you attend a school which might make such a claim?" question in
> request-assign.* was answered in a way indicating no disclaimer is needed.
Further to that I think the FSF should be documenting the requirement
for a corporate disclaimer in the copyright.list file itself. That way
we can avoid doing this request from FSF legal every time we encounter
a personal assignment or disclaimer with a matching corporate one.