bug#34589: 26.1.91; GDB-MI Display Complex Data Types

[Gustaf Waldemarson]

> May be narrowing to very specific area (emacs, gdb-mi, no-arm-specific) would
> help?

It seems like that could be a possibility. I did get a bit more "willing" mail
last Friday evening but I suspect will require quite a bit more time from
everyone involved. I'll keep track of things internally, but for now I believe
we should consider the patches unusable.


> Does the first patch have value on its own? If so, we can accept it without
> legal paperwork.

I would argue that either patch have some value. The first patch enables display
of the complex data types and the second changes the interface to use a
non-deprecated function from the gdb interface that additionally lists function
arguments as well, something the previous one did not (at least if I have
understood the documentation correctly).

Although, the first patch in my list is the bigger one. Wasn't that part of the
problem legal-wise?


> If you think you have a chance of findin another job, you might want to look
> for one, negotiating for a suitable copyright disclaimer about contributions
> to free software as part of your employment contract itself. Do ask your
> lawyer (NOT the company's lawyer) to check it.

I'm afraid I'm not in a position in life where this is something that I can
consider. Although, I will keep it in mind in the future.


> Itʼs doubly surprising, given that Arm employees contribute patches to
> binutils all the time.

>From what I've been told (and this might very well be third-hand info or 
>worse),
Arm employees working on binutils and GCC can do so under an older agreement
that was in place prior to the introduction of the employer disclaimer.

They also told me that *if* Emacs was covered by that agreement, the patches
could be used given that they were re-authored to use my Arm e-mail, but I've
not heard back from them regarding that.


> Depending on what country youʼre in, your employer may have no claim
> whatsoever on code that you come up with on your own time (sometimes
> even if you came up with it *during* your actual work for them).
>
> Of course, this is a complex area, so you'd need to consult a lawyer
> to be sure (and Iʼm not one :-) )

Funny that you would mention that. I've heard similar things elsewhere, but
unfortunately I'm not in a position where I can challenge Arm regarding this to
change my contract. As I mentioned earlier though, I will be more careful the
future.


> So you could respond by demanding they tell you concretely what kind of thing
> they are talking about "exposing", instead of giving you a mysifying answer.

Thanks, I'll be sure to do just that.

Den lör 2 mars 2019 kl 04:28 skrev Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>:
>
> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
>
>   > Apparently Arm has taken the
>   > stance that signing such a disclaimer could "open a legal door which
>   > could expose intellectual property in the future".
>
> The term "intellectual property" is a tool for mystification.
> It spreads confusion every time it is used, and that is why they use it.
> See https://gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html.
>
> It takes an overgeneralization -- "intellecual property law" -- which
> should never be used -- and then reifies it.
>
> So you could respond by demanding they tell you concretely what kind
> of thing they are talking about "exposing", instead of giving you
> a mysifying answer.
>
> --
> Dr Richard Stallman
> President, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org)
> Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
>
>