Re: [pooma-dev] [PATCH] Fix Tiny/Zero.h, add Tiny/One.h, new testcase

[Richard Guenther]

On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Jeffrey Oldham wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 11:07:44AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > 
> > The attached patch introduces Tiny/One.h and a new testcase to
> > check ConstantFunction engine and Tiny/Zero.h, Tiny/One.h. Tiny/Zero.h
> > is also fixed (as in the previously sent patch + additional fixes).
> 
> This and the other patches are great!  I appreciate your work, and I
> read the emails, but CodeSourcery cannot incorporate the changes
> without a copyright assignment analogous to how the Free Software
> Foundation (FSF) handles contributions to the GCC compiler suite.
> CodeSourcery is working on writing such an agreement.  Are you willing
> to sign such an agreement?

While I dont have objections in assigning copyright to the FSF for gcc
which is GPL, I would like to have a more elaborate statement on why
CodeSourcery needs copyright assignment for pooma (which is sort of BSD
license with advertising clause).

Regarding to the advertising clause - is it necessary to put it on new
files? I'd rather place an LGPL license in my contributed files, but like
to hear wether this imposes restrictions on the use for pooma users.

Also I do the work on pooma as part of a Deutsche Forschungsgesellschaft
funded work, so I may not be allowed to give away copyright (in fact, I
may not own copyright anyway!?). So in any case I have to ask the local
legal department on this.

How do other users think of the license/copyright issues?


Thanks, Richard.

Btw. - patches/work done by me on pooma so far can be viewed beyond
http://www.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de/~rguenth/pooma/

--
Richard Guenther <address@hidden>
WWW: http://www.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de/~rguenth/
The GLAME Project: http://www.glame.de/