[gccgo] Add notes about contributing patches

[Ian Lance Taylor]

Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> writes:

> On Dec  3, 2010, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com> wrote:
>
>> The goal is specifically to permit the Go frontend that I wrote to be
>> used with non-GPL compilers.
>
> Ok, a license to Google, such as the one you link to from docs,
> accomplishes that.  But it doesn't AFAICT assign copyrights to the FSF,
> so we should change the wording in the docs to avoid giving anyone the
> impression that signing the *license* agreement with Google is enough
> for the copyright to be *transferred* to the FSF, or to get code into
> GCC.  Or is it?

I agree that I miswrote the README files.  I've tried to clarify them
now.  I hope.


>> Certainly Google is not going to release the code under arbitrary
>> terms; the terms are right there in the LICENSE file, basically a BSD
>> license.
>
> If we could get commitment from Google to never release the code as
> non-Free Software (BSD license with commitment to offer corresponding
> sources, not Tivoize, and not otherwise get in the way of the exercise
> of the four freedoms for whoever comes across the code at hand) would
> satisfy that, I think, but IANAL.

What kind of statement would satisfy you here?  The Go license already
exists.  It is a BSD license, plus an explicit patent statement.  You
can see it in the gcc repository now in the files
gcc/go/gofrontend/LICENSE and libgo/LICENSE (two copies of the same
text).  Can you write the text you would like to see?

We're already trying to adjust this slightly because the Fedora project
wanted the patent grant and the license proper to be in two different
files.  The FSF had already agreed that the current text was OK for the
contribution to gcc.  I am now asking them whether it is OK to split it
up into two files to keep the Fedora project happy.  I sent them the
question three weeks ago and have pinged twice.  No reply as yet.

If you write new text, can you volunteer to get the FSF to sign off on
it?  Given past history I think it very likely that it will be easier to
get Google to agree than it will be to get the FSF to agree.

Ian