From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Do you recognize these modules? Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 16:12:11 +0200 Message-ID: <877gweua10.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <87zk9r8p1s.fsf@gnuvola.org> <8762bz89zg.fsf@gnuvola.org> <87obpqudds.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1337004770 30273 80.91.229.3 (14 May 2012 14:12:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 14:12:50 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org To: Noah Lavine Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon May 14 16:12:49 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1STw11-0008Hx-O3 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 14 May 2012 16:12:48 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:55255 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1STw10-0000iA-SL for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 14 May 2012 10:12:46 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:51910) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1STw0x-0000hJ-9A for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 14 May 2012 10:12:44 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1STw0m-0005s5-5V for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 14 May 2012 10:12:42 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([208.118.235.10]:50136) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1STw0m-0005s1-23 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 14 May 2012 10:12:32 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34569 helo=lola) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1STw0k-0002D8-8x; Mon, 14 May 2012 10:12:30 -0400 Original-Received: by lola (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 04F282006C1; Mon, 14 May 2012 16:12:11 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: (Noah Lavine's message of "Mon, 14 May 2012 09:59:26 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 208.118.235.10 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:14417 Archived-At: Noah Lavine writes: >>> Luckily, I haven't actually started the rewrite, because I also have >>> limited time to work on this. So I'm very glad to hear that you're >>> interested in transfering them. If you are the only author of the >>> pieces, then I think the transfer is simple - you put the FSF >>> copyright notice at the top, and you're done. >> >> Uh no. =A0You can't just assign copyright to somebody without asking the= m, >> much like you can't just assign parentship to somebody without asking >> them. > > Yes, this was specific to this situation, because I thought that he > had already signed a copyright assignment form. I don't mean this as a > general statement of when you can make changes to Guile. > >> Since Thien-Thi Nguyen assigned copyright to GOOPS and general changes >> to future changes to GUILE to the FSF in 2000 already, it is more or >> less a matter of him checking in the changes or otherwise contributing >> them in a manner making clear that the contribution is intentional. >> Matching copyright headers are obviously a good indicator for that. > > Ah, so he would have to either check them in himself or send them as > patches to the list, correct? (In addition to the assignment.) The assignment is the formal part. The rest is just a matter of making sure that "but I never intended you to take _that_" does not come up. So it is always safer if a contributor _gives_ stuff himself (or designates them) rather than if someone else _takes_ it from him on the assumption that this was intended to be taken. Like if you have a contract for buying a horse. If you take it from the barn and later the owner says "You took the halter! I did not sell the halter!" that's a worse situation to be in rather than if he handed you the horse including halter, even though the halter is not in the contract. Frankly, in the given situation I should be rather surprised if there was potential for misunderstandings. It does look like both the intent to contribute as well as the compass of the contribution are quite well-understood. --=20 David Kastrup