[committed v2] MIPS/opcodes: Fix alias annotation for branch instructions

[Maciej W. Rozycki]

On Mon, 7 Mar 2022, Sagar Patel wrote:

> >  NB I can see you have not contributed before and your patch is very
> > small, affecting 4 lines of code only, which qualifies as not a legally
> > significant change.  If you wish to continue contributing to binutils
> > project however, then please consider getting a copyright assignment
> > signed with FSF, as this will allow you to make changes beyond the limit
> > of ~15 lines of code total, which these 4 lines count against too.  Nick,
> > the head binutils maintainer (cc-ed), will get you introduced if you would
> > like to follow this path.
> 
> I have another patch that has a larger diff teed up, so I guess I'll
> need to look into copyright assignment. Is there an easy way to assign
> copyright as changes are submitted, instead of assigning it for all
> future changes?

 You can certainly assign copyright for individual changes only, however 
FSF has not traditionally been particularly swift handling paperwork, so 
it may not be the most efficient and the least frustrating way of doing 
things.

 From my engineer's point of view the easiest way not to assign copyright 
for any future changes is not to submit them in the first place, and that 
works equally well with the standard copyright assignment.  I guess 
lawyers can have a different view though.  I think you can withdraw an 
assignment already in place at any time too.

> It would be great if this project could drop the copyright assignment
> requirement like gcc [1]. This would certainly reduce friction in the
> process of contributing. (I know you're probably not the person that
> makes these decisions. Just putting this out there.)

 I do not know if any decision WRT the copyright policy for binutils will 
be unilateral or consensus-based (probably the latter, in which case I 
will most likely have a chance to speak out), but in any case Nick will 
be the best person to tell.  Nick?

  Maciej