From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Marius Vollmer Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.bugs Subject: Re: [PATCH] posix.texi: added additional examples Date: 03 Apr 2002 20:29:57 +0200 Sender: bug-guile-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <87k7rotz2x.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> References: <3C9629FF.1070008@kaidea.freeserve.co.uk> <3C967532.6090806@kaidea.freeserve.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1017865042 15081 127.0.0.1 (3 Apr 2002 20:17:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 20:17:22 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Ian Sheldon , bug-guile@gnu.org Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16srC6-0003v8-00 for ; Wed, 03 Apr 2002 22:17:22 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16spex-00084b-00; Wed, 03 Apr 2002 13:39:03 -0500 Original-Received: from dialin.speedway42.dip149.dokom.de ([195.138.42.149] helo=zagadka.ping.de) by fencepost.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16spTZ-00058C-00 for ; Wed, 03 Apr 2002 13:27:17 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail 1227 invoked by uid 1000); 3 Apr 2002 18:30:00 -0000 Original-To: Neil Jerram In-Reply-To: Original-Lines: 22 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1 Errors-To: bug-guile-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: bug-guile@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Bug reports for GUILE, GNU's Ubiquitous Extension Language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.bugs:92 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.bugs:92 Neil Jerram writes: > I don't know. It's not huge, but it is rather longer than the `about > 10 lines' guideline that I've heard mentioned before. > > Marius, can you advise? Hmm, well, I'm no expert on this but here are some thoughts (with a conclusion., even :). The FSF requires copyright assignments to guard against the case that someone contributes something that he is not allowed to contribute, and we might be forced to remove the contributions again. So I tend to see this as a risk assessment, more or less. How high is the risk that the contribution will be revoked? How much damage will it cause? In this case, the risk is very low, and the damage is very small. So, in my view, it is OK to include the patch without 'the papers'. However, it can't hurt to ask the contributor anyway (like Rob did). _______________________________________________ Bug-guile mailing list Bug-guile@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile