Re: [RFC] syntax highlighting

[Keith Seitz <keiths at redhat dot com>]

Jon Beniston wrote:
> > Sorry but I do not understand where I've done something that 
> > violates the existing copyright.
>  
> You haven't.

Correct -- you haven't done anything wrong in any way even remotely 
imaginable.

> > As far as I'm interpreting this, I'm allowed to modify the 
> > source e.g. 
> > by adding the syntax highlighting stuff to it. 
>
> You are. If you want to take all the source and start your own fork that's
> fine.

Absolutely correct.

> > Red Hat itself might have a set of rules which kind of 
> > modification they accept and which they will reject.
>
> The only reason I can see why you need to assign copyright is so that Red
> Hat can license Insight under a different (non-free) license. But maybe I'm
> being a tad cynical.

Well, I can't speak for that, because I'm pretty sure Red Hat is 
finished with Insight (so much so that I can't even get 10 minutes from 
an attorney to sign paperwork assigning Red Hat's copyrights to the FSF).

I am simply following the FSF's rules for development. If you make a 
non-trivial change to the code (and I'm usually quite generous with what 
I consider trivial), we need to have you (and your employer, if 
necessary) assign copyright to us. [For a more official explanation of 
why this is done, see 
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/why-assign.html/view?searchterm=assignment 
 .]

In Insight's case, the compelling reason AFAIAC is specifically for the 
dream of one day assigning all of insight over to the FSF. If the FSF 
suspects for a moment that some chunk of code doesn't have sufficient 
legal proof that we own the copyright, it will be rejected.

Keith