GNU bug report logs - #22086
25.1.50; [PATCH] Integrate the musl hybrid malloc patch for elf systems

Previous Next

Full log

Message #23 received at 22086 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Rich Felker <dalias <at> aerifal.cx>
To: Wolfgang Jenkner <wjenkner <at> inode.at>
Cc: Paul Eggert <eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu>, 22086 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#22086: 25.1.50; [PATCH] Integrate the musl hybrid malloc
 patch for elf systems
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 11:26:07 -0500

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 02:16:41PM +0100, Wolfgang Jenkner wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 16 2015, Paul Eggert wrote:
> 
> > Those patches look reasonable, except that one is listed as being by
> > Rich Felker, who has not signed copyright papers for GNU Emacs as far
> > as I know. I'll CC: this to him to give him a heads-up. Rich, would
> > you mind transferring copyright to that patch to the FSF? Here's
> > a link:
> >
> > http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=22086;msg=5;att=3;filename=0004-Add-musl-patch-to-support-HYBRID_MALLOC-on-elf-syste.patch
> 
> 
> Rich Felker has asked me in private mail (please, please CC your replies
> to 22086 <at> debbugs.gnu.org) to clarify the authorship of that patch.
> I actually stated in the commit message
> 
>     Except for build system fixes this is essentially the same as
> 
>     http://git.alpinelinux.org/cgit/aports/tree/testing/emacs/musl.patch?id=d6f211ec868df4657c745b8ba2bae77b2a7fb7f6
> 
> So, I wrote the build system fixes, and, strictly speaking, only the two
> lines in src/unexelf.c which declare and initialize bss_sbrk_did_unexec
> are directly from the original "Alpine Linux" patch above.
> 
> I can split the patch accordingly and ascribe only the latter part to
> Rich Felker if this is preferred.  The original patch still helped me to
> quickly find where I had to change something; this is why a attributed
> the whole patch to Rich Felker as it is just an expansion, as it were,
> of his version.

I'm not concerned with how it's split or attributed as long as the FSF
is fine with it. I just wanted to avoid misrepresenting parts that I
did not actually write when describing my changes for copyright
assignment. But this does solve my confusion about why I thought the
patch was trivial -- my original version was hardly anything but some
//'s and #if 0's.

Assuming you already have the proper assignment on file, does it
suffice for me to just mention that parts of the patch are your work?

Rich

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.