Re: libtool pre-1.5b tests fail on 9 debian arches

[Bob Friesenhahn]

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003, Robert Millan wrote:
>
> Assigning copyright and being given CVS access is not necessarily related:

For any substantial updates, copyright is certainly the driving issue.

>  - If you send too many patches for review without having CVS access, then you
>    might consider assigning copyright so that you can send more patches for
>    review.

The FSF guidelines specify allow to 14 lines of *total* contribution
from an author without copyright assignment.  It doesn't take many
small patches to reach this level.

>  - Sometimes GNU maintainers agree to give you CVS access before the actual
>    paper signing process is complete, provided that you agree not to commit
>    more code of your own than you're allowed to. (this is my current situation
>    with GNU GRUB, for example).

I believe that this practice is contrary to the agreement we sign with
the FSF.  If word-of-mouth and personal trust was sufficient, then
there would be no need for paper contracts.  The SCO/Linux situation
is evidence that these are not minor issues.

> Scott: IMO all Debian maintainers of GNU software should do this as part of
> their maintaining task. Please request assigning copyright for past and future
> changes to libtool by emailing "address@hidden".

Very good idea.  However, always keep in mind that if someone sends a
patch to a person with signed paperwork, then the recipient is not
the author of the patch and the situation has not significantly
improved.

Bob
======================================
Bob Friesenhahn
address@hidden
http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen