| Summary: | Follow-up on x86-64 stub submission | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | gdb | Reporter: | Simon Marchi <simark> |
| Component: | gdb | Assignee: | Not yet assigned to anyone <unassigned> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
| Severity: | normal | CC: | brobecker, simon.marchi, ssbssa, tromey |
| Priority: | P2 | ||
| Version: | HEAD | ||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Host: | Target: | ||
| Build: | Last reconfirmed: | ||
|
Description
Simon Marchi
2020-11-11 20:52:13 UTC
Hi Simon. Quick update: I dont' seem to be able to find Caleb in the FSF files of people who have assigned copyright. Do you happen to know whether the copyright assignment has gone through, since then? The last message I got from the FSF clerk was: My apologies for the delays, but I now have what I need to proceed. I agree the additional stub under the public domain makes sense. Fortunately, my opinions don't count . It is up to you as maintainers! I'm just the clerk in this process. The issue on my end was that contributors very rarely take the public domain route, and I had difficulty finding examples that documented the process; however, I did find an example, so I will move the process along as I am able. I'm not sure exactly what that means. I guess we are good to go? Do we still need Caleb to have a copyright assignment? The way I read it is that the FSF is not ready to answer our question and that it is asking us to make the decision, knowing that we are even less equipped than the FSF to do so :-/. The main question is whether we can consider that this contribution is either in the public domain, or falls within the "obvious change" or "tiny change" allowance. For the code to be public domain, Caleb would need to disclaim it, and he unfortunately cannot do so by email. The FSF has a disclaim form for that very purpose. Also, since Caleb appears to be working for NetApp IIUC, if the code was written as part of his work, it's actually his employer that would need to disclaim it. As for the "obvious" or "tiny" rule, I did a diff between gdb/stub/i386-stub.c and the proposed x86_64-stub.c, and besides the changes that are pure formatting or documentation, I think there are a sufficient number of changes that I think it would be hard to argue that the change is either "obvious" or "tiny". So, I'm afraid in this case that we can't take this contribution without an assignment on file, either pure disclaim putting the code in the public domain, or assigning the copyright to the FSF. I'm not a lawyer, so I might be off in my understanding, but I think we should even more careful with these questions when not sure... Do we want to close this PR, or do we want to try to pursue the copyright assignment issue a bit more? > Do we want to close this PR, or do we want to try to pursue the copyright
> assignment issue a bit more?
I'm going to start by removing the 11.1 Target Milestone. I think we tried our best to remember to handle this in time for the GDB 11 release, but this is otherwise not release-critical. I'm not opposed to delaying the release by a week or two if there is an effort from the patch's author to assign the copyright to the FSF, though.
Is there still something to be done here? Here's the thread on public inbox, it's easier to read: https://inbox.sourceware.org/gdb-patches/fcc7109f-a6d9-bbd3-6e09-10a75c09887a@simark.ca/ We never heard back from Caleb regarding the copyright assignment, so right now there's nothing we can do. If there's no plan to follow up on this, I think we can close the bug (the code can still be merged in the future if the copyright assignment issue gets resolved). Closing for now. |