Hi Konstantinos,
On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 11:12:17AM +0300, Konstantinos Eleftheriou wrote:
> I would like to contribute to Binutils, GCC, glibc and GDB. Could
> you send me the relevant forms for copyright assignment? My
> contributions will be on behalf of VRULL.
At https://git.savanna
Hello,
I would like to contribute to Binutils, GCC, glibc and GDB. Could you
send me the relevant forms for copyright assignment? My contributions
will be on behalf of VRULL.
Thank you in advance,
Konstantinos Eleftheriou
Hi, Seyed
Welcome. Glad that you want to contribute to GCC. GCC accepts
contributions from developers who either execute a copyright assignment to
the Free Software Foundation OR who certify the Developer Certificate of
Origin for their contributions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html
Hi Seyed,
On Sat, May 25, 2024 at 11:34:53AM +0100, Seyed Sajad Kahani via Gcc wrote:
> I am writing to request the FSF copyright assignment forms, as they
> are a legal requirement for contributing to GCC.
At https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gnulib.git/tree/doc/Copyright
you'
Hi,
I am writing to request the FSF copyright assignment forms, as they
are a legal requirement for contributing to GCC.
Cordially,
Seyed Sajad Kahani
Hi Ed,
On Thu, Jun 08, 2023 at 10:32:15AM +, Ed Crothall wrote:
> Could you please send across the relevant copyright assignment forms
> to enable contributions to GCC from Imagination Technologies
> Limited?
At https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gnulib.git/tree/doc/Copyright
you&#x
Hi folks.
Could you please send across the relevant copyright assignment forms to enable
contributions to GCC from Imagination Technologies Limited?
Thanks in advance.
Best
Ed
Antoni,
You'll want to get an employer disclaimer signed by your employer to
make sure your contributions cannot be claimed by them. Please email
ass...@fsf.org and we can work through the process.
--
All the best,
Craig Topham
Copyright & Licensing Associate
Free Software Foundation
51 Frankli
>
> What exactly should I list to make sure my contributions to GCC are not
> affected by this?
> Do I need to do something more than this to make sure there are no
> issues with the FSF copyright assignment?
>
>
We cannot provide legal advice, employment advice or labor advice
ed by this?
Do I need to do something more than this to make sure there are no
issues with the FSF copyright assignment?
Thanks.
As most of you are probably aware, glibc is also discussing whether or not
to remove the copyright assignment mandate to the FSF. I have posted a
comment there regarding that, now available at:
https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2021-June/128303.html
… which is supplemented by a
>> Also, are there many non-FSF-assigned contribution in the development
>> branch already?
>
>I'm not aware of any anywhere yet.
adec14811714e22a6c1f7f0199adc05370f0d8b0
96963713f6a648a0ed890450e02ebdd8ff583b14
621ea10ca060ba19ec693aa73b5e29d553cca849
3e5f2425f80aedd00f28235022a2755eb46f310d
ee95
> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2021 at 2:17 AM
> From: "Giacomo Tesio"
> To: "David Edelsohn"
> Cc: "Jakub Jelinek" , "gcc Mailing List"
> Subject: Re: Update to GCC copyright assignment policy
>
> Hi David,
>
> On June 7, 2021 1:2
> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2021 at 6:10 AM
> From: "Giacomo Tesio"
> To: "Jason Merrill"
> Cc: "Jakub Jelinek" , "gcc Mailing List"
> Subject: Re: Update to GCC copyright assignment policy
>
> Hi Jason,
>
> On June 7, 2021 5:
Hi Jason,
On June 7, 2021 5:24:12 PM UTC, Jason Merrill wrote:
>
> Why would someone bother to hassle a redistributor who can just say
> "nonsense, we're in compliance, the corresponding source is at this
> URL"?
Usually it's a matter of money AND details.
> What return on their time can they r
On Mon, Jun 7, 2021, 07:36 Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> Hi NightStrike,
>
> On June 7, 2021 5:18:13 PM UTC, NightStrike wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 7, 2021, 06:12 Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> >
> > > The Steering Committee can avoid all of this, now.
> > > I cannot really understand why they shouldn't.
> > >
> >
Hi NightStrike,
On June 7, 2021 5:18:13 PM UTC, NightStrike wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 7, 2021, 06:12 Giacomo Tesio wrote:
>
> > The Steering Committee can avoid all of this, now.
> > I cannot really understand why they shouldn't.
> >
>
> Likely because the primary contributor to c++ has said he will
On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 12:12 PM Giacomo Tesio wrote:
>
>
> On June 7, 2021 3:45:49 PM UTC, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 11:23 AM Giacomo Tesio
> > wrote:
> >
> > > > So, a few extra copyright holders under DCO instead of assignment
> > > > to FSF will not really change anythin
On Mon, Jun 7, 2021, 06:12 Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> The Steering Committee can avoid all of this, now.
> I cannot really understand why they shouldn't.
>
Likely because the primary contributor to c++ has said he will stop
contributing unless the change is made.
>
On June 7, 2021 3:45:49 PM UTC, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 11:23 AM Giacomo Tesio
> wrote:
>
> > > So, a few extra copyright holders under DCO instead of assignment
> > > to FSF will not really change anything significant.
> >
> > I'm afraid you are being a bit naive here.
>
On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 11:45:49AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> The copyright troll risk is much, much lower for GCC than for Linux.
> First, because GPL3 specifically addresses the over-strict automatic
> termination rules in GPL2 that copyright trolls leverage. And also because
> there are many
On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 11:23 AM Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> On June 7, 2021 2:44:56 PM UTC, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >
> > Nonsense. GCC codebase doesn't have a single copyright holder for
> > decades, just look at the source.
> >
> > libffi has various copyright holders
> > include/hsa* has AMD as cop
Hi Jakub,
On June 7, 2021 2:44:56 PM UTC, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> Nonsense. GCC codebase doesn't have a single copyright holder for
> decades, just look at the source.
>
> libffi has various copyright holders
> include/hsa* has AMD as copyright holder
> gcc/go/gofrontend and libgo has The Go A
On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 15:48:06 +0200 Richard Biener wrote:
> > Also, are there many non-FSF-assigned contribution in the
> > development branch already?
>
> I'm not aware of any anywhere yet.
A very good news!
(but should be confirmed by the Steering Committee)
This means that this issue is stil
On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 02:17:55PM +, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> Anyway, to most people it's just a matter of risk assesment.
>
> GCC will now come with a new legal risk that was absemt before, thus
> it should be handled properly, with a proper notice and incapaulated
> in a new major version.
Hi David,
On June 7, 2021 1:26:52 PM UTC, David Edelsohn wrote:
>
> > It's a breaking change, after all.
>
> It's not a new or different license (unlike GPLv2->GPLv3). It's not
> reverting the existing copyrights and assignments.
For sure, but it IS a different legal framework anyway.
Before
On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 3:10 PM Giacomo Tesio wrote:
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> On June 7, 2021 7:35:01 AM UTC, Richard Biener
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 5:27 PM Jason Merrill via Gcc
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 10:46 AM Giacomo Tesio
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I would
On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 6:11 AM Giacomo Tesio wrote:
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> On June 7, 2021 7:35:01 AM UTC, Richard Biener
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 5:27 PM Jason Merrill via Gcc
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 10:46 AM Giacomo Tesio
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I would
Hi Richard,
On June 7, 2021 7:35:01 AM UTC, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 5:27 PM Jason Merrill via Gcc
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 10:46 AM Giacomo Tesio
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I would have really appreciated if the GCC SC had announced such
> change
> > > for t
On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 5:27 PM Jason Merrill via Gcc wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 10:46 AM Giacomo Tesio wrote:
>
> >
> > I would have really appreciated if the GCC SC had announced such change
> > for the upcoming GCC 12 while sticking to the old policy in GCC 11.
> >
>
> That is how I was
> Sent: Friday, June 04, 2021 at 4:50 AM
> From: "Daniel Pono Takamori"
> To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Update to GCC copyright assignment policy
>
> I'm joining this list just briefly to give some feedback and input on this
> thread on behalf of So
Hi Daniel,
On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 12:50:44 -0400 Daniel Pono Takamori wrote:
> We definitely don't want to see the GCC mailing list derailed into
> discussing this possibly off-topic issue.
To be fair, THIS is the correct mailing list to discuss these
topics, so much that such major policy change sh
eft-compliance/>
is primarily designed for projects (e.g., BusyBox, Debian, Linux, Samba) that
have diversely-held copyright. We provide logistical and coordination
support for individuals who hold copyright (and help them figure out how to
keep their own copyrights) and we also accept copyright ass
> Sent: Friday, June 04, 2021 at 2:45 AM
> From: "Giacomo Tesio"
> To: "Jakub Jelinek"
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Update to GCC copyright assignment policy
>
> On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 16:14:15 +0200 Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > Becau
On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 10:46 AM Giacomo Tesio wrote:
>
> I would have really appreciated if the GCC SC had announced such change
> for the upcoming GCC 12 while sticking to the old policy in GCC 11.
>
That is how I was thinking of the change, but I agree that it needs
clarification.
Jason
On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 16:14:15 +0200 Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Because it makes no sense
A change in the copyright policies and ownership of a project is usually
seen as a very big change, so much that usually the project change its
whole name, not just its major version.
> doing a GCC release is lots
On Thu, Jun 03, 2021 at 04:07:07PM +0200, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 15:02:16 +0200 Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jun 03, 2021 at 02:35:51PM +0200, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> > > Is it possible to release a new version for the last commit that
> > > only includes changes under FSF
Hi Jakub,
On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 15:02:16 +0200 Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 03, 2021 at 02:35:51PM +0200, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> > Is it possible to release a new version for the last commit that
> > only includes changes under FSF copyright, possibly deferring the
> > introduction of non-fsf
he GNU
> > General Public License v3.0. GCC will now accept contributions with or
> > without an FSF copyright assignment.
>
> Is it possible to release a new version for the last commit that only
> includes changes under FSF copyright, possibly deferring the
> introduct
sed under the GNU
> General Public License v3.0. GCC will now accept contributions with or
> without an FSF copyright assignment.
Is it possible to release a new version for the last commit that only
includes changes under FSF copyright, possibly deferring the
introduction of non-fsf copyright
On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 4:18 AM Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> On Tue, Jun 01, 2021 at 12:58:12PM -0700, Thomas Rodgers wrote:
> > On 2021-06-01 07:28, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > > If we no longer want the FSF to be the legal guardian and copyright
> > > holder for GCC could we please find an
> Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2021 at 2:36 AM
> From: "Jason Merrill via Gcc"
> To: "Mark Wielaard"
> Cc: "Florian Weimer" , "gcc Mailing List"
>
> Subject: Re: Update to GCC copyright assignment policy
>
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 4
On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 4:10 AM Mark Wielaard wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 01, 2021 at 11:05:24AM -0400, Richard Kenner wrote:
> > > > What about the parts of GCC with FSF copyrights that are not covered
> by
> > > > the GPL, but the GPL with exceptions? How is it possible to move
> code
> > > > between
Hi Thomas,
On Tue, Jun 01, 2021 at 12:58:12PM -0700, Thomas Rodgers wrote:
> On 2021-06-01 07:28, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > If we no longer want the FSF to be the legal guardian and copyright
> > holder for GCC could we please find another legal entity that performs
> > that role and helps us as a
On Tue, Jun 01, 2021 at 11:05:24AM -0400, Richard Kenner wrote:
> > > What about the parts of GCC with FSF copyrights that are not covered by
> > > the GPL, but the GPL with exceptions? How is it possible to move code
> > > between the parts if a contributor previously used DCO and thus gave
> > >
for all changes to the Free Software Foundation. GCC
will continue to be developed, distributed, and licensed under the GNU
General Public License v3.0. GCC will now accept contributions with or
without an FSF copyright assignment. This change is consistent with
the practices of many other major
the Free Software Foundation. GCC
> will continue to be developed, distributed, and licensed under the GNU
> General Public License v3.0. GCC will now accept contributions with or
> without an FSF copyright assignment. This change is consistent with
> the practices of many other major Free
> Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2021 at 7:58 AM
> From: "Thomas Rodgers"
> To: "Mark Wielaard"
> Cc: "GCC Development"
> Subject: Re: Update to GCC copyright assignment policy
>
> On 2021-06-01 07:28, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>
> > Hi Davi
, distributed, and licensed under the GNU
General Public License v3.0. GCC will now accept contributions with or
without an FSF copyright assignment. This change is consistent with
the practices of many other major Free Software projects, such as the
Linux kernel.
Contributors who have an FSF Copyright
> Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2021 at 4:20 AM
> From: "Maciej W. Rozycki"
> To: "DJ Delorie"
> Cc: "Paul Koning" , gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Update to GCC copyright assignment policy
>
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2021, DJ Delorie via Gcc wrote:
>
&
://stallmansupport.org/ https://www.fsf.org/ https://www.gnu.org/
> Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2021 at 4:44 AM
> From: "Joseph Myers"
> To: "David Edelsohn"
> Cc: "Jakub Jelinek" , "GCC Development"
> Subject: Re: Update to GCC copyright assig
> Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2021 at 4:24 AM
> From: "Maciej W. Rozycki"
> To: "Christopher Dimech"
> Cc: "Paul Koning" , "Jakub Jelinek"
> , "GCC Development"
> Subject: Re: Update to GCC copyright assignment policy
>
> On Jun 1, 2021, at 12:44 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2021, David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
>
>> The copyright author will be listed as "Free Software Foundation,
>> Inc." and/or "The GNU Toolchain Authors", as appropriate.
>
> And copyright notices naming "The GNU Toolchain Aut
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021, David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
> The copyright author will be listed as "Free Software Foundation,
> Inc." and/or "The GNU Toolchain Authors", as appropriate.
And copyright notices naming "The GNU Toolchain Authors" should not
include a date - that's following the recommendati
cations spelled
>> out in full, and the new rules clearly expressed.
>
> The GNU Toolchain Authors are all of the authors, including those with
> FSF Copyright. All of the authors agree to the existing license,
> which is "...either version 3, or (at your option) any later ver
older I can release my modifications say under v4 or v4+. It
> is unclear to me if the newer licence will then "stick" to the rest of the
> sources, but I suspect it will. A copyright assignment made to FSF (or
> another legal entity) prevents this complication from happening.
e FSF has always been open to create special
exemptions to the copyright assignment process.
This is just all ill thought, and clearly shown by the lack of any
discussion with anyone.
> So that cannot be the rationale for this.
I do not want to contribute my work to a project that requires FSF
copyright assignment to the rest of the project, even if it wouldn't
be required for (some of) my own contributions. In any case,
historically libstdc++ *does* require an assign
> Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2021 at 4:09 AM
> From: "Paul Smith"
> To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Update to GCC copyright assignment policy
>
> On Tue, 2021-06-01 at 11:50 -0400, David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
> > The current, active license in GPL v3.0.
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021, Christopher Dimech wrote:
> > It is a real problem. As I recall a while ago parts of QEMU had to be
> > removed and reimplemented from scratch when the project switched licences,
> > because a contributor and therefore a copyright holder (whom I knew in
> > person and who I a
ources (for obvious reasons, given
that the recipient of the sources is not a copyright holder), however as a
copyright holder I can release my modifications say under v4 or v4+. It
is unclear to me if the newer licence will then "stick" to the rest of the
sources, but I suspect it wi
tion. GCC
>> > will continue to be developed, distributed, and licensed under the GNU
>> > General Public License v3.0. GCC will now accept contributions with or
>> > without an FSF copyright assignment. This change is consistent with
>> > the pr
On Tue, 2021-06-01 at 11:50 -0400, David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
> The current, active license in GPL v3.0. This is not an announcement
> of any change in license.
>
> Quoting Jason Merrill:
>
> "GCC's license is "GPL version 3 or later", so if there ever needed
> to be a GPL v4, we could move t
> Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2021 at 4:01 AM
> From: "Maciej W. Rozycki"
> To: "Paul Koning"
> Cc: "Jakub Jelinek" , "GCC Development"
> Subject: Re: Update to GCC copyright assignment policy
>
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2021, Paul Konin
authors agree to the existing license,
which is "...either version 3, or (at your option) any later version."
If the project chooses to adopt a future update to the GPL, all of
the authors have given permission through the existing copyright
assignment or through certification of the DCO to utilize the newer
license.
Thanks, David
tion. GCC
>> > will continue to be developed, distributed, and licensed under the GNU
>> > General Public License v3.0. GCC will now accept contributions with or
>> > without an FSF copyright assignment. This change is consistent with
>> > the pr
right for all changes to the Free Software Foundation. GCC
> > will continue to be developed, distributed, and licensed under the GNU
> > General Public License v3.0. GCC will now accept contributions with or
> > without an FSF copyright assignment. This change is consistent with
> What is the rationale after these changes anyway?
Development of new features for libstdc++ has already moved away from
gcc.gnu.org to avoid the copyright assignment. Other contributors have
expressed a desire to do the same.
>From the GCC mission statement:
- Other comp
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021, Paul Koning via Gcc wrote:
> That seems to create a possible future complication. Prior to this
> change, the FSF (as owner of the copyright) could make changes such as
> replacing the GPL 2 license by GPL 3. With the policy change, that
> would no longer be possible, unle
for all changes to the Free Software Foundation. GCC
> > will continue to be developed, distributed, and licensed under the GNU
> > General Public License v3.0. GCC will now accept contributions with or
> > without an FSF copyright assignment. This change is consistent with
> &
Paul Koning via Gcc writes:
>> GCC's license is "GPL version 3 or later", so if there ever needed to be a
>> GPL v4, we could move to it without needing permission from anyone.
>
> I don't think that is what the license says. It says:
>
> GCC is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modif
e Free Software Foundation. GCC
>> will continue to be developed, distributed, and licensed under the GNU
>> General Public License v3.0. GCC will now accept contributions with or
>> without an FSF copyright assignment. This change is consistent with
>> the practices of many
> What is the rationale after these changes anyway?
Development of new features for libstdc++ has already moved away from
gcc.gnu.org to avoid the copyright assignment. Other contributors have
expressed a desire to do the same.
On Tue, Jun 01, 2021 at 11:25:16AM -0400, Paul Koning via Gcc wrote:
> GCC is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> the Free Software Foundation; either version 3, or (at your option)
> any later version.
>
> T
> On Jun 1, 2021, at 11:08 AM, Jason Merrill via Gcc wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:52 AM D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote:
>
>> | From: Mark Wielaard
>>
>> | This seems a pretty bad policy to be honest.
>> | Why was there no public discussion on this?
>>
>> Agreed. I also agree with the r
, distributed, and licensed under the GNU
> General Public License v3.0. GCC will now accept contributions with or
> without an FSF copyright assignment. This change is consistent with
> the practices of many other major Free Software projects, such as the
> Linux kernel.
>
> Co
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:52 AM D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote:
> | From: Mark Wielaard
>
> | This seems a pretty bad policy to be honest.
> | Why was there no public discussion on this?
>
> Agreed. I also agree with the rest of Mark's message.
>
> (Note: I haven't contributed to GCC but I have contr
> > What about the parts of GCC with FSF copyrights that are not covered by
> > the GPL, but the GPL with exceptions? How is it possible to move code
> > between the parts if a contributor previously used DCO and thus gave
> > only permission to license under the open source license "indicated in
I am pleased to see a change based on my recommendation. The FSF should not
refrain
from accepting contributions based on modified versions of software in instances
where the developer of the modified work is unable to get a copyright assignment
of the code, but are legally allowed to use a
| From: Mark Wielaard
| This seems a pretty bad policy to be honest.
| Why was there no public discussion on this?
Agreed. I also agree with the rest of Mark's message.
(Note: I haven't contributed to GCC but I have contributed to other
copylefted code bases.)
It is important that the pool be
to be developed, distributed, and licensed under the GNU
General Public License v3.0. GCC will now accept contributions with or
without an FSF copyright assignment. This change is consistent with
the practices of many other major Free Software projects, such as the
Linux kernel.
The GCC
nt to
> > assign copyright for all changes to the Free Software Foundation. GCC
> > will continue to be developed, distributed, and licensed under the GNU
> > General Public License v3.0. GCC will now accept contributions with or
> > without an FSF copyright assignment. Th
> On Jun 1, 2021, at 10:31 AM, David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
>
> The copyright author will be listed as "Free Software Foundation,
> Inc." and/or "The GNU Toolchain Authors", as appropriate.
What does that mean? FSF is a well defined organization. "The GNU Toolchain
Authors" sounds like on
ittee has decided to relax the requirement to
> > assign copyright for all changes to the Free Software Foundation. GCC
> > will continue to be developed, distributed, and licensed under the GNU
> > General Public License v3.0. GCC will now accept contributions with or
> > without
r the GNU
> General Public License v3.0. GCC will now accept contributions with or
> without an FSF copyright assignment. This change is consistent with
> the practices of many other major Free Software projects, such as the
> Linux kernel.
>
> Contributors who have an FSF Copyrig
ill continue to be developed, distributed, and licensed under the GNU
> General Public License v3.0. GCC will now accept contributions with or
> without an FSF copyright assignment. This change is consistent with
> the practices of many other major Free Software projects, such as the
> Linux ke
e Free Software Foundation. GCC
> will continue to be developed, distributed, and licensed under the GNU
> General Public License v3.0. GCC will now accept contributions with or
> without an FSF copyright assignment. This change is consistent with
> the practices of many other major Free
the GNU
General Public License v3.0. GCC will now accept contributions with or
without an FSF copyright assignment. This change is consistent with
the practices of many other major Free Software projects, such as the
Linux kernel.
Contributors who have an FSF Copyright Assignment don't need to
c
在 2021/4/10 下午3:22, Jonathan Wakely 写道:
I don't about David, but the reason I take it off-list is that there is more than one form that
might be appropriate, depending on the contributor's situation. The forms are available online (e.g.
in the gnulib repo) but discussing what is suitable, and
On Sat, 10 Apr 2021, 03:37 Liu Hao via Gcc, wrote:
> 在 2021/4/9 下午11:06, David Edelsohn via Gcc 写道:
> > Replied privately.
> >
>
> Excuse me, but why this has to be done privately? I generally expect there
> to be such a form that
> people may download, fill and submit without public acknowledgem
在 2021/4/9 下午11:06, David Edelsohn via Gcc 写道:
Replied privately.
Excuse me, but why this has to be done privately? I generally expect there to be such a form that
people may download, fill and submit without public acknowledgements.
Please forgive me if I am being too curious.
--
Best re
Replied privately.
On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 8:37 AM Ruihan Li via Gcc wrote:
>
> Hello, everyone.
>
>
>
>
> I'd like to contribute to the gccrs project
> (https://github.com/Rust-GCC/gccrs) and they require contributions to have
> copyright assignment in place.
Hello, everyone.
I'd like to contribute to the gccrs project (https://github.com/Rust-GCC/gccrs)
and they require contributions to have copyright assignment in place. Could you
please tell me what I should do and send me the relevant forms?
Thank you in advance.
Ruihan Li
Replied off-list.
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 9:49 AM George Liakopoulos via Gcc
wrote:
>
> Dear GCC Community ,
>
> I am planning to contribute in Rust-GCC project (
> https://github.com/Rust-GCC) , so I think it will be good to have the
> copyright assignment from now on .
&g
Dear GCC Community ,
I am planning to contribute in Rust-GCC project (
https://github.com/Rust-GCC) , so I think it will be good to have the
copyright assignment from now on .
Waiting for your reply ,
George Liakopoulos
Replied off-list.
Thanks, David
On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 11:16 AM Ansh Tyagi via Gcc wrote:
>
> Hey,
> I would like to contribute in Rust-GCC/gccrs so I am requesting a Copyright
> Assignment Form. Let me know if there are any more steps to contribute.
>
> Thanks & Regards
> Ansh Tyagi
Hey,
I would like to contribute in Rust-GCC/gccrs so I am requesting a Copyright
Assignment Form. Let me know if there are any more steps to contribute.
Thanks & Regards
Ansh Tyagi
See off list.
Thanks, David
On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 7:08 AM The Other via Gcc wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I would like to get a copyright assignment form for GCC. I believe that
> https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html states that the right place to get such a
> form is here.
>
> Thanks,
> Theo
Hi,
I would like to get a copyright assignment form for GCC. I believe that
https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html states that the right place to get such a
form is here.
Thanks,
Theo
Sent off list.
- David
On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 11:28 PM Akshat Agarwal via Gcc wrote:
>
> Hey,
> I would like to contribute some patches to the gccrs project
> (https://github.com/Rust-GCC/gccrs/) and I'd like to get a copyright
> assignment form as per the guidelines
1 - 100 of 232 matches
Mail list logo
