avr-libc-dev
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [avr-libc-dev] 1.8.1?


From: Weddington, Eric
Subject: Re: [avr-libc-dev] 1.8.1?
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 22:49:52 +0000


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erik Walthinsen [mailto:address@hidden
> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 3:40 PM
> To: Weddington, Eric
> Cc: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [avr-libc-dev] 1.8.1?
> 

> I thought I read a while back that since the headers are strictly
> derived (by scripts, the part I haven't worked out yet) 

Yes, there are conversion scripts of a sort.


> from the
> Atmel-owned XML that there were some ownership issues.  Since my
> solution here to make things built was to literally straight-copy the
> headers from the ASF install on my Windows VM, it's even more dodgy in
> that sense.

That is dodgy; Atmel owns the copyright on those files. It's not within your 
right to submit a work that you don't own the copyright on. That's why I 
suggested it would be better to let device support, or at least the header file 
part, come from Atmel.

 
> I'd class these as trivial patches (they're done in a for() loop...) but
> they're more than 10 lines. 

If they're more than 10 lines, the FSF does not classify that as trivial.


> I can do the copyright assignment, or I can
> just email you my script and let you take "ownership" of the binutils
> and gcc changes if that's more expedient.

Well, we can talk about it. Obviously it would be better if you did the 
copyright assignment. But from experience, it's also a giant PITA, especially 
if you have an employer who might have a claim on your work (because you would 
need their permission to do this).

But if the work is small enough, and you don't care, then we could probably 
work out some arrangement.

Eric




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]