Re: iconvme sync

2005-09-03 Thread Oskar Liljeblad
On Saturday, September 03, 2005 at 11:26, Simon Josefsson wrote: > The problem here seem to be that changes to iconvme.c really is for > the code in glibc, and that gnulib merely import the glibc code. > Oskar hasn't signed papers for glibc. > > Perhaps we can view it as Oskar has submitted it as

Re: iconvme sync

2005-09-03 Thread Simon Josefsson
Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> But I have never understood why one has to sign per-projects form for >> the FSF anyway... > > It's a legal thing. When you assign your copyright, you have to > specify what it is you're signing over. Othe

Re: iconvme sync

2005-09-03 Thread Oskar Liljeblad
On Friday, September 02, 2005 at 19:13, James Youngman wrote: > > > Hmm, another problem. I've signed a copyright assignment for Gnulib, > > but not for GNU libc. I guess that needs to be signed as well first? > > If your assignment was assign.future, the FSF now owns the code and > can do what t

Re: iconvme sync

2005-09-02 Thread Paul Eggert
Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > But I have never understood why one has to sign per-projects form for > the FSF anyway... It's a legal thing. When you assign your copyright, you have to specify what it is you're signing over. Otherwise there could be abuses of the legal system (yo

Re: iconvme sync

2005-09-02 Thread James Youngman
On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 04:00:10PM +0200, Oskar Liljeblad wrote: > Hmm, another problem. I've signed a copyright assignment for Gnulib, > but not for GNU libc. I guess that needs to be signed as well first? If your assignment was assign.future, the FSF now owns the code and can do what they like

Re: iconvme sync

2005-09-02 Thread Simon Josefsson
"Gary V. Vaughan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Simon Josefsson wrote: >> "Oskar Liljeblad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>>On Friday, September 02, 2005 at 15:17, Simon Josefsson wrote: >>> >It seems iconvme.[ch] was updated in gnulib a few days ago; it used to >be synced from libc. A

Re: iconvme sync

2005-09-02 Thread Gary V. Vaughan
Simon Josefsson wrote: "Oskar Liljeblad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: On Friday, September 02, 2005 at 15:17, Simon Josefsson wrote: It seems iconvme.[ch] was updated in gnulib a few days ago; it used to be synced from libc. Are there libc bug reports or anything to associate with this, or a

Re: iconvme sync

2005-09-02 Thread Simon Josefsson
"Oskar Liljeblad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Friday, September 02, 2005 at 15:17, Simon Josefsson wrote: >> >> > It seems iconvme.[ch] was updated in gnulib a few days ago; it used to >> > be synced from libc. Are there libc bug reports or anything to >> > associate with this, or are we ju

Re: iconvme sync

2005-09-02 Thread Oskar Liljeblad
On Friday, September 02, 2005 at 15:17, Simon Josefsson wrote: > > > It seems iconvme.[ch] was updated in gnulib a few days ago; it used to > > be synced from libc. Are there libc bug reports or anything to > > associate with this, or are we just forked? > > Oops, I had forgot we were synced. O

Re: iconvme sync

2005-09-02 Thread Simon Josefsson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl Berry) writes: > It seems iconvme.[ch] was updated in gnulib a few days ago; it used to > be synced from libc. Are there libc bug reports or anything to > associate with this, or are we just forked? Oops, I had forgot we were synced. Oskar, do you want to file a glibc bu

iconvme sync

2005-09-02 Thread Karl Berry
It seems iconvme.[ch] was updated in gnulib a few days ago; it used to be synced from libc. Are there libc bug reports or anything to associate with this, or are we just forked? Thanks, k ___ bug-gnulib mailing list bug-gnulib@gnu.org http://lists.gnu