* [ECOS] Are copyright assignments detrimental to eCos? @ 2008-03-28 2:59 Øyvind Harboe 2008-04-02 19:01 ` Jonathan Larmour 0 siblings, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread From: Øyvind Harboe @ 2008-03-28 2:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: eCos Disuss I believe that a sluggish patch + commit process is detrimental to eCos. Clearly copyright assignments slow things down. Why copyright assignments at this point? Is it an anachronism? Why should *all* of eCos require copyright assignments? What about other projects imported to eCos? Do they too have copyright assignments in order? jffs2? zlib? -- Øyvind Harboe http://www.zylin.com - eCos ARM & FPGA developer kit -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: [ECOS] Are copyright assignments detrimental to eCos? 2008-03-28 2:59 [ECOS] Are copyright assignments detrimental to eCos? Øyvind Harboe @ 2008-04-02 19:01 ` Jonathan Larmour 2008-04-03 9:38 ` Markus Schaber 2008-04-03 19:01 ` Alexander Neundorf 0 siblings, 2 replies; 35+ messages in thread From: Jonathan Larmour @ 2008-04-02 19:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Øyvind Harboe; +Cc: eCos Disuss Ãyvind Harboe wrote: > I believe that a sluggish patch + commit process is detrimental to eCos. Contributors need to make assignments just one time. Other projects are plenty busy enough with their regular contributors. We don't seem to have quite as many that stick around, but that's not the fault of the process. > Clearly copyright assignments slow things down. > > Why copyright assignments at this point? > > Is it an anachronism? Legal protection. Probably most embedded engineers have contracts that lay down that work done by them is owned by their employer - certainly during company time, and often outside company time too. This is more true for the embedded space than most others because there are comparatively few hobbyists compared to other projects - for us, the vast majority of users/developers will be using it as part of their work. Therefore in most cases, it is not the employee's choice whether to contribute something - they don't own it to begin with. Many OSS projects are treading on thin legal ice because they are accepting stuff willy-nilly. They could have problems if just one employer turns round and says "Hey, that's our code!". If you're lucky you can get away with removing the code, rather than having to pay damages, although the latter is a legal option. For us in the embedded world, the consequences are a thousand times worse - deployed embedded devices in the field using eCos would have to be recalled. (For example, every Playstation 3). A company could use this to effectively extort money. The IBM vs. SCO case affecting Linux shows what could happen with uncertain ownership, and SCO was very clear that they were going to charge. Luckily it worked out for everyone. This time. People have said many times that the lack of clear code ownership in Linux is a time-bomb. Single ownership also sorts out GPL license enforcement. Breaking the license on a large amount of eCos code is easy to enforce; but how about when someone copies just bits and pieces. Functions here and there, but breaks the GPL and doesn't distribute source. You need to be able to know who specifically owns the copyright to those *specific* pieces of code, and it is the authors of that code, and no-one else, who have to enforce the license. No-one else can do it on their behalf. The FSF will of course happily enforce the GPL for us. > Why should *all* of eCos require copyright assignments? All contributions at any rate. > What about other projects imported to eCos? Do they too have copyright > assignments in order? jffs2? zlib? We relax it for self-contained established open source projects - in that case it's a port of the code we're really trying to deal with, not the code itself. It's not up to us to enforce their assignment rules. Sure, it's not desirable, but we're forced into a corner. We certainly shouldn't make it worse. It would be better if we had clearer explanations of licensing and copyright affecting code. eCosCentric has been approached before to develop a licensing management tool, but it hasn't happened yet. Jifl -- eCosCentric Limited http://www.eCosCentric.com/ The eCos experts ** Visit us at ESC Silicon Valley <http://www.embedded.com/esc/sv> ** ** April 15-17 2008, Booth 3012, San Jose McEnery Convention Center ** Barnwell House, Barnwell Drive, Cambridge, UK. Tel: +44 1223 245571 Registered in England and Wales: Reg No 4422071. ------["Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere"]------ Opinions==mine -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: [ECOS] Are copyright assignments detrimental to eCos? 2008-04-02 19:01 ` Jonathan Larmour @ 2008-04-03 9:38 ` Markus Schaber [not found] ` <47F4A57F.1080501@gaisler.com> 2008-04-03 18:46 ` Bart Veer 2008-04-03 19:01 ` Alexander Neundorf 1 sibling, 2 replies; 35+ messages in thread From: Markus Schaber @ 2008-04-03 9:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ecos-discuss Hi, Jonathan, Jonathan Larmour <jifl@eCosCentric.com> wrote: > Øyvind Harboe wrote: > > Clearly copyright assignments slow things down. > > > > Why copyright assignments at this point? > > > > Is it an anachronism? > > Legal protection. I understand this point, but in some legislations, a full copyright assignment is not possible legally. Additionally, our company has the policy that any substantial contribution must be copy-lefted, so no-one else can make closed-source derivates. Copyright assignment creates a single point of failure against closed-source derivates, weakening the copyleft. Spread Copyright protects against such a single point of failure. A nice example were the latest tries to buyout linux - it is impossible to get all the licenses of some thousand independent contributors. But imagine someone undermining/bribing the FSF[1], he can then legally relicense all those GNU software which requires copyright assignment. And RedHat specifically says that "other licenses" for eCos are available, so any RedHat sales droid is officially aiming to be bribed to relicense the code. > Therefore in most cases, it is not the employee's choice whether to > contribute something - they don't own it to begin with. Many OSS projects > are treading on thin legal ice because they are accepting stuff > willy-nilly. They could have problems if just one employer turns round and > says "Hey, that's our code!". If you're lucky you can get away with > removing the code, rather than having to pay damages, although the latter > is a legal option. Copyright assignment is not necessary to solve this problem, an company official signing that the contributions are licensed under the eCos License is enough for that. > Single ownership also sorts out GPL license enforcement. Breaking the > license on a large amount of eCos code is easy to enforce; but how about > when someone copies just bits and pieces. Functions here and there, but > breaks the GPL and doesn't distribute source. You need to be able to know > who specifically owns the copyright to those *specific* pieces of code, and > it is the authors of that code, and no-one else, who have to enforce the > license. No-one else can do it on their behalf. The FSF will of course > happily enforce the GPL for us. I'm sure that the "right to enforce" could be transferred without transferring the right to relicense, but IANAL. > > Why should *all* of eCos require copyright assignments? > > All contributions at any rate. Really small contributions (obvious typo fixes etc.) aren't copyrightable in most legislations, so no assignment should be necessary. Regards, Markus [1] Yes, I know that this is impossible, at least as long as Richard M. Stallman leads the FSF. But we all know that every "good" institution can turn bad after some decades, when the founders get replaced by the next and 3rd generations. -- Markus Schaber | Logical Tracking&Tracing International AG Dipl. Inf. | Software Development GIS Fight against software patents in Europe! www.ffii.org www.nosoftwarepatents.org -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <47F4A57F.1080501@gaisler.com>]
* Re: [ECOS] Are copyright assignments detrimental to eCos? [not found] ` <47F4A57F.1080501@gaisler.com> @ 2008-04-03 11:14 ` Jiri Gaisler 2008-04-03 18:49 ` Alexander Neundorf 0 siblings, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread From: Jiri Gaisler @ 2008-04-03 11:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Markus Schaber; +Cc: ecos-discuss Markus Schaber wrote: > Additionally, our company has the policy that any substantial > contribution must be copy-lefted, so no-one else can make closed-source > derivates. > > Copyright assignment creates a single point of failure against > closed-source derivates, weakening the copyleft. I completely agree with Markus. We are hesitant to contribute our leon2/3 port and drivers because we do not want to have closed-source distributions (e.g. eCos Pro) using our code without contributing back fixes or improvements. The ideal solution would be to license the eCos code in LGPL. This would allow mixing proprietary applications with the kernel, while force any improvements or bug fixes to be published. Jiri. -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: [ECOS] Are copyright assignments detrimental to eCos? 2008-04-03 11:14 ` Jiri Gaisler @ 2008-04-03 18:49 ` Alexander Neundorf [not found] ` <47F55A47.7070602@gaisler.com> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread From: Alexander Neundorf @ 2008-04-03 18:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ecos-discuss On Thursday 03 April 2008, Jiri Gaisler wrote: > Markus Schaber wrote: > > Additionally, our company has the policy that any substantial > > contribution must be copy-lefted, so no-one else can make closed-source > > derivates. > > > > Copyright assignment creates a single point of failure against > > closed-source derivates, weakening the copyleft. > > I completely agree with Markus. We are hesitant to contribute our > leon2/3 port and drivers because we do not want to have closed-source > distributions (e.g. eCos Pro) using our code without contributing > back fixes or improvements. The ideal solution would be to license So GPL or LGPL would be ok for you ? > the eCos code in LGPL. This would allow mixing proprietary applications > with the kernel, while force any improvements or bug fixes to be > published. Well, and it would enforce that company ship their firmware as object files or relinkable static libraries, so that this together with the LGPL part (eCos then) could be relinked to a working firmware image. I think that's not a very practical solution. Alex -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <47F55A47.7070602@gaisler.com>]
* Re: [ECOS] Are copyright assignments detrimental to eCos? [not found] ` <47F55A47.7070602@gaisler.com> @ 2008-04-03 22:40 ` Jiri Gaisler 2008-04-04 4:11 ` Alexander Neundorf 2008-04-04 9:02 ` Markus Schaber 0 siblings, 2 replies; 35+ messages in thread From: Jiri Gaisler @ 2008-04-03 22:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: neundorf; +Cc: ecos-discuss Using LGPL does not require you ship your firmware as object files and link later. My understanding of LGPL is that you can ship proprietary core linked with LGPL code, without having to open-source the proprietary code. It is only the modifications of the LGPL code you must publish, which is exactly what we are after. Jiri. Alexander Neundorf wrote: >> I completely agree with Markus. We are hesitant to contribute our >> leon2/3 port and drivers because we do not want to have closed-source >> distributions (e.g. eCos Pro) using our code without contributing >> back fixes or improvements. The ideal solution would be to license > > So GPL or LGPL would be ok for you ? > >> the eCos code in LGPL. This would allow mixing proprietary applications >> with the kernel, while force any improvements or bug fixes to be >> published. > > Well, and it would enforce that company ship their firmware as object files or > relinkable static libraries, so that this together with the LGPL part (eCos > then) could be relinked to a working firmware image. > I think that's not a very practical solution. > > Alex > > > -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: [ECOS] Are copyright assignments detrimental to eCos? 2008-04-03 22:40 ` Jiri Gaisler @ 2008-04-04 4:11 ` Alexander Neundorf 2008-04-04 9:02 ` Markus Schaber 1 sibling, 0 replies; 35+ messages in thread From: Alexander Neundorf @ 2008-04-04 4:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jiri Gaisler; +Cc: ecos-discuss On Friday 04 April 2008, Jiri Gaisler wrote: > Using LGPL does not require you ship your firmware as > object files and link later. My understanding of LGPL > is that you can ship proprietary core linked with LGPL > code, without having to open-source the proprietary > code. Yes, you don't have to ship your code if you link to a LGPL library. But you have to ship your executable in such a form that the user can create a new version of it if he wants to use a different version of the LGPLd library. This means you don't have to ship source code, but object files or a static library. For desktop-applications this is different, if you link to a LGPL shared library you can just replace the shared library with another version and everything is fine. You can have a look at the LGPL, it is written somewhere, I don't remember the exact words. Alex -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: [ECOS] Are copyright assignments detrimental to eCos? 2008-04-03 22:40 ` Jiri Gaisler 2008-04-04 4:11 ` Alexander Neundorf @ 2008-04-04 9:02 ` Markus Schaber [not found] ` <47F5F130.2030800@gaisler.com> 1 sibling, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread From: Markus Schaber @ 2008-04-04 9:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ecos-discuss Hi, Jiri, Jiri Gaisler <jiri@gaisler.com> wrote: > Using LGPL does not require you ship your firmware as > object files and link later. My understanding of LGPL > is that you can ship proprietary core linked with LGPL > code, without having to open-source the proprietary > code. It is only the modifications of the LGPL code > you must publish, which is exactly what we are after. Please read the LGPL carefully. You stumbled over one of the differences between the LGPL and the "GPL with linking exception", as used by eCos or the GCC run time library, AFAIR. Regards, Markus -- Markus Schaber | Logical Tracking&Tracing International AG Dipl. Inf. | Software Development GIS Fight against software patents in Europe! www.ffii.org www.nosoftwarepatents.org -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <47F5F130.2030800@gaisler.com>]
* Re: [ECOS] Are copyright assignments detrimental to eCos? [not found] ` <47F5F130.2030800@gaisler.com> @ 2008-04-04 9:36 ` Jiri Gaisler [not found] ` <20080404114231.7efcf59a@kingfisher.sec.intern.logix-tt.com> 2008-04-04 10:00 ` Chris Zimman 1 sibling, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread From: Jiri Gaisler @ 2008-04-04 9:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Markus Schaber; +Cc: ecos-discuss This is getting interesting. I understand the difference between LGPL and GPL better now, and I have found the eCos lining exception part in the license: // As a special exception, if other files instantiate templates or use macros // or inline functions from this file, or you compile this file and link it // with other works to produce a work based on this file, this file does not // by itself cause the resulting work to be covered by the GNU General Public // License. However the source code for this file must still be made available // in accordance with section (3) of the GNU General Public License. Does this mean that if we contribute some files to eCos under this license and they end up in eCos Pro, any modifications to them made by eCosCentric would have to be published and could be merged back to the open version of eCos. The last sentence seems to indicate this, I just want be sure. I have looked at the files in eCos Pro, and majority of it has the GPL license with the linking exception. Is there anything that would prevent me from merging updated files from eCos Pro back to the open CVS version? Jiri. Markus Schaber wrote: > Hi, Jiri, > > Jiri Gaisler <jiri@gaisler.com> wrote: > >> Using LGPL does not require you ship your firmware as >> object files and link later. My understanding of LGPL >> is that you can ship proprietary core linked with LGPL >> code, without having to open-source the proprietary >> code. It is only the modifications of the LGPL code >> you must publish, which is exactly what we are after. > > Please read the LGPL carefully. > > You stumbled over one of the differences between the LGPL and the "GPL > with linking exception", as used by eCos or the GCC run time library, > AFAIR. > > > Regards, > Markus > -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <20080404114231.7efcf59a@kingfisher.sec.intern.logix-tt.com>]
[parent not found: <47F5FC4A.2080401@gaisler.com>]
* Re: [ECOS] Are copyright assignments detrimental to eCos? [not found] ` <47F5FC4A.2080401@gaisler.com> @ 2008-04-04 10:50 ` Jiri Gaisler 2008-04-04 15:33 ` Alex Schuilenburg 2008-04-04 14:58 ` Andrew Lunn 1 sibling, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread From: Jiri Gaisler @ 2008-04-04 10:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ecos-discuss Markus Schaber wrote: >> I have looked at the files in eCos Pro, and majority of it has >> the GPL license with the linking exception. Is there anything that >> would prevent me from merging updated files from eCos Pro back >> to the open CVS version? > > AFAICS, no, given that you legally received your copy of eCos Pro. eCoscentric provides a free eCos Pro kit for the Nios processor, which anyone can download. This would mean that all GPL files in the kit are free to be merged with the open CVS. Or is there some other catch ...? Jiri. -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: [ECOS] Are copyright assignments detrimental to eCos? 2008-04-04 10:50 ` Jiri Gaisler @ 2008-04-04 15:33 ` Alex Schuilenburg 2008-04-04 16:09 ` Markus Schaber 0 siblings, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread From: Alex Schuilenburg @ 2008-04-04 15:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jiri Gaisler; +Cc: eCos Discussion Jiri Gaisler wrote: > Markus Schaber wrote: > >> Additionally, our company has the policy that any substantial >> contribution must be copy-lefted, so no-one else can make closed-source >> derivates. >> >> Copyright assignment creates a single point of failure against >> closed-source derivates, weakening the copyleft. > > I completely agree with Markus. We are hesitant to contribute our > leon2/3 port and drivers because we do not want to have closed-source > distributions (e.g. eCos Pro) using our code without contributing > back fixes or improvements. eCosPro is certainly not closed source and most of the code is under the same GPL+ex license as eCos. Everyone who receives eCosPro receives the full source code. Sure, we provide additional functionality under a different source license with our eCosPro distributions, but there is nothing wrong in earning a buck from our work. Also, GPL+ex code always stays GPL+ex. There is no way we or anyone else can ship the code under any other license. Any contribution of yours would stay open source whatever - we and the community would welcome your contribution. I'm also intrigued by your attitude regarding contributions. Do you also withhold contributions if the code could be used by some evil regime or for some purpose which you don't agree with? In fact every commercial company that uses eCos more than likely makes money from it because they don't have to pay license fees or royalties, and not many contribute anything back. That is one of the things about free open source - you don't have much control of how people use your contributions. As for eCosCentric not contributing fixes or improvements, that is incorrect. Mixed in with the various bug fixes we contribute, you will also find enhancements such as PPP, SPI, I2C, flash v2, etc. > The ideal solution would be to license > the eCos code in LGPL. This would allow mixing proprietary applications > with the kernel, while force any improvements or bug fixes to be > published. Neither the eCos GPL nor the LGPL force any code to be published. It requires that you make the sources available to any code recipient who requests it and even allows you to make a nominal charge to cover costs for providing the code. Some organisations just choose to publish the code to avoid dealing with such requests. To reiterate something said earlier, the LGPL requires object code redistribution which could be a limiting factor for some commercial middleware. GPL+x is IMO the best solution for commercial use of eCos. Later Jiri Gaisler also wrote: > > > Markus Schaber wrote: > >>> I have looked at the files in eCos Pro, and majority of it has >>> the GPL license with the linking exception. Is there anything that >>> would prevent me from merging updated files from eCos Pro back >>> to the open CVS version? >> >> AFAICS, no, given that you legally received your copy of eCos Pro. > > eCoscentric provides a free eCos Pro kit for the Nios processor, > which anyone can download. This would mean that all GPL files in > the kit are free to be merged with the open CVS. Or is there some > other catch ...? You cannot contribute something which you do not own, namely the copyright, irrespective of what license the code is distributed under (GPL, LGPL, GPL+ex). > > Jiri. > -- Alex Schuilenburg Managing Director/CEO eCosCentric Limited Tel: +44 1223 245571 Barnwell House, Barnwell Drive Fax: +44 1223 248712 Cambridge, CB5 8UU, UK www.ecoscentric.com Reg in England and Wales, Reg No 4422071 ** Visit us at ESC Silicon Valley <http://www.embedded.com/esc/sv> ** ** April 15-17 2008, Booth 3012, San Jose Convention Center ** -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: [ECOS] Are copyright assignments detrimental to eCos? 2008-04-04 15:33 ` Alex Schuilenburg @ 2008-04-04 16:09 ` Markus Schaber 2008-04-04 16:13 ` Markus Schaber 0 siblings, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread From: Markus Schaber @ 2008-04-04 16:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ecos-discuss Hi, Alex, Alex Schuilenburg <alexs@ecoscentric.com> wrote: > eCosPro is certainly not closed source and most of the code is under the > same GPL+ex license as eCos. Everyone who receives eCosPro receives the > full source code. Sure, we provide additional functionality under a > different source license with our eCosPro distributions, but there is > nothing wrong in earning a buck from our work. I fully agree here. > Also, GPL+ex code always > stays GPL+ex. There is no way we or anyone else can ship the code under > any other license. Any contribution of yours would stay open source > whatever - we and the community would welcome your contribution. That does not hold true in case of FSF-Style copright assignments. I don't know the eCos assignment clauses exactly, but the FSF-Style assignments allow the FSF to relicense the code under every license they want. The official reason is that they can update the code to newer GPL releases, and that works well as long as the FSF stays on the "good" side. And, while I'm nit-picking, one could always remove the linker exception, redistributing the whole under plain GPL. :-) > I'm also intrigued by your attitude regarding contributions. Do you also > withhold contributions if the code could be used by some evil regime or > for some purpose which you don't agree with? In fact every commercial > company that uses eCos more than likely makes money from it because they > don't have to pay license fees or royalties, and not many contribute > anything back. That is one of the things about free open source - you > don't have much control of how people use your contributions. Yes, you don't have much control. Using copylefted licenses is one way to retain a little of those control. And copyright assignmend undermines that copyleft, at least for one privileged institution. That's the policy of logix-tt, for "substantial" contributions, and not necessarily my personal one. > Neither the eCos GPL nor the LGPL force any code to be published. It > requires that you make the sources available to any code recipient who > requests it and even allows you to make a nominal charge to cover costs > for providing the code. Some organisations just choose to publish the > code to avoid dealing with such requests. When nitpicking, putting the sourcecode on a public server alone would not fulfil the exact worded requirements of GPL V2 (at least when the binary was distributed another way), but in practice, it fulfilled the spirit of the GPL, and I know of no case where somebody complained. This was fixed in GPL V3. > > eCoscentric provides a free eCos Pro kit for the Nios processor, > > which anyone can download. This would mean that all GPL files in > > the kit are free to be merged with the open CVS. Or is there some > > other catch ...? > You cannot contribute something which you do not own, namely the > copyright, irrespective of what license the code is distributed under > (GPL, LGPL, GPL+ex). This is the policy of the eCos maintainers, they won't accept anything into the open CVS without copyright assignment. Of yourse, you could take the burden and fork your own eCos tree, where you can include anything you want (given that you don't violate the licenses). LLVM is going this way, and EGCS was going it some time ago. But it's always a big burden, and small projects like eCos should not get lost in divergence. Regards, Markus -- Markus Schaber | Logical Tracking&Tracing International AG Dipl. Inf. | Software Development GIS Fight against software patents in Europe! www.ffii.org www.nosoftwarepatents.org -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: [ECOS] Are copyright assignments detrimental to eCos? 2008-04-04 16:09 ` Markus Schaber @ 2008-04-04 16:13 ` Markus Schaber 2008-04-04 16:25 ` Andrew Lunn 0 siblings, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread From: Markus Schaber @ 2008-04-04 16:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ecos-discuss Hi, Markus, Markus Schaber <schabi@logix-tt.com> wrote: > That does not hold true in case of FSF-Style copright assignments. I > don't know the eCos assignment clauses exactly, I just was told that the eCos copyright assignment is not to RedHat or eCosCentric, but to the FSF. That falsifies my statements about the RedHat sales droids, I presume, although there are still the "for other licenses, contact RedHat" statements scattered over the web and source. Regards, Markus -- Markus Schaber | Logical Tracking&Tracing International AG Dipl. Inf. | Software Development GIS Fight against software patents in Europe! www.ffii.org www.nosoftwarepatents.org -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: [ECOS] Are copyright assignments detrimental to eCos? 2008-04-04 16:13 ` Markus Schaber @ 2008-04-04 16:25 ` Andrew Lunn 2008-04-04 16:26 ` Markus Schaber 0 siblings, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread From: Andrew Lunn @ 2008-04-04 16:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Markus Schaber; +Cc: ecos-discuss > I just was told that the eCos copyright assignment is not to RedHat > or eCosCentric, but to the FSF. > > That falsifies my statements about the RedHat sales droids, I presume, > although there are still the "for other licenses, contact RedHat" > statements scattered over the web and source. Yes, that statement is slowly being eradicated. When ever i touch a file i tend to remove it. At some point we will wholesale remove the rest, but that means touching nearly every file, so it is a big change to CVS. So this is likely to happen at the same time we change the Copyright notice to FSF which again needs to touch every file in the repository. Andrew -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: [ECOS] Are copyright assignments detrimental to eCos? 2008-04-04 16:25 ` Andrew Lunn @ 2008-04-04 16:26 ` Markus Schaber 0 siblings, 0 replies; 35+ messages in thread From: Markus Schaber @ 2008-04-04 16:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ecos-discuss Hi, Andrew, Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch> wrote: > > I just was told that the eCos copyright assignment is not to RedHat > > or eCosCentric, but to the FSF. > > > > That falsifies my statements about the RedHat sales droids, I presume, > > although there are still the "for other licenses, contact RedHat" > > statements scattered over the web and source. > > Yes, that statement is slowly being eradicated. When ever i touch a > file i tend to remove it. At some point we will wholesale remove the > rest, but that means touching nearly every file, so it is a big change > to CVS. So this is likely to happen at the same time we change the > Copyright notice to FSF which again needs to touch every file in the > repository. One of that statements is: | For information on obtaining alternative licences for JFFS2, see | http://sources.redhat.com/jffs2/jffs2-licence.html And that page on the web says "For information on obtaining alternative licences for JFFS2, contact Red Hat directly.". Maybe changing that information on the website is a quick&dirty way to break up the path of misleading statements. :-) Regards, Markus -- Markus Schaber | Logical Tracking&Tracing International AG Dipl. Inf. | Software Development GIS Fight against software patents in Europe! www.ffii.org www.nosoftwarepatents.org -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: [ECOS] Are copyright assignments detrimental to eCos? [not found] ` <47F5FC4A.2080401@gaisler.com> 2008-04-04 10:50 ` Jiri Gaisler @ 2008-04-04 14:58 ` Andrew Lunn [not found] ` <47F642D0.7000907@xylanta.com> ` (2 more replies) 1 sibling, 3 replies; 35+ messages in thread From: Andrew Lunn @ 2008-04-04 14:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jiri Gaisler; +Cc: ecos-discuss On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 12:00:42PM +0200, Jiri Gaisler wrote: > > > Markus Schaber wrote: > >>> I have looked at the files in eCos Pro, and majority of it has >>> the GPL license with the linking exception. Is there anything that >>> would prevent me from merging updated files from eCos Pro back >>> to the open CVS version? >> >> AFAICS, no, given that you legally received your copy of eCos Pro. > > eCoscentric provides a free eCos Pro kit for the Nios processor, > which anyone can download. This would mean that all GPL files in > the kit are free to be merged with the open CVS. Or is there some > other catch ...? The catch is that in order for it to be included into anoncvs, the owner of the code has to agree and transfer the copyright to FSF. So i cannot just pick up eCosCentric code and commit it. eCosCentric have to agree to it as copyright owner. Andrew -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <47F642D0.7000907@xylanta.com>]
* Re: [ECOS] Are copyright assignments detrimental to eCos? [not found] ` <47F642D0.7000907@xylanta.com> @ 2008-04-04 15:17 ` Andrew Lunn 0 siblings, 0 replies; 35+ messages in thread From: Andrew Lunn @ 2008-04-04 15:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andy Jackson; +Cc: ecos-discuss, andrew On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 04:01:36PM +0100, Andy Jackson wrote: > <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> > <html> > <head> > <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> Plain ASCII please, don't encrypt with HTML. > >From an academic interest point of view, is this true for the parts > that have been derived from existing GPL licenced files? Surely the > whole point of the GPL is that you can't withhold a derivative work?<br> > <br> > Andy<br> Two different things here. Making the code available and getting it included in anoncvs. You can make eCosCentric's GPL code available, its GPL. But for me to make it part of anoncvs i want a clear assignment to FSF. Without that, eCosCentric might be able to sue me for taking away their bread and butter since they own the code. Or they could ask for license fee from people who then use the code etc. This goes back to the question about why we need FSF to own the code, legal protection, and the same rules apply to eCosCentric contributed code. Andrew -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <47F6450C.4090302@gaisler.com>]
* Re: [ECOS] Are copyright assignments detrimental to eCos? [not found] ` <47F6450C.4090302@gaisler.com> @ 2008-04-04 15:17 ` Jiri Gaisler 2008-04-04 16:06 ` Alex Schuilenburg 2008-04-04 15:45 ` Andrew Lunn 1 sibling, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread From: Jiri Gaisler @ 2008-04-04 15:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ecos-discuss Andrew Lunn wrote: >>>> I have looked at the files in eCos Pro, and majority of it has >>>> the GPL license with the linking exception. Is there anything that >>>> would prevent me from merging updated files from eCos Pro back >>>> to the open CVS version? >>> AFAICS, no, given that you legally received your copy of eCos Pro. >> eCoscentric provides a free eCos Pro kit for the Nios processor, >> which anyone can download. This would mean that all GPL files in >> the kit are free to be merged with the open CVS. Or is there some >> other catch ...? > > The catch is that in order for it to be included into anoncvs, the > owner of the code has to agree and transfer the copyright to FSF. So i > cannot just pick up eCosCentric code and commit it. eCosCentric have > to agree to it as copyright owner. So if I contribute code to the anoncvs, I assign the copyright to FSF. If eCoscentric includes the code into eCos Pro, it will still bear the FSF copyright. If they then make a bug fix, any licensee of eCos Pro should be able to submit the fix into anoncvs, since the copyright is still with FSF and the code is still GPL. Have I got this right? Or do I need to assign the copyright to eCoscentric before it is included in the eCos Pro distribution? What I am trying to avoid is a fork of a potential contribution, with one version in anoncvs and some other version in eCos Pro. Jiri. -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: [ECOS] Are copyright assignments detrimental to eCos? 2008-04-04 15:17 ` Jiri Gaisler @ 2008-04-04 16:06 ` Alex Schuilenburg [not found] ` <47F65C78.5050005@gaisler.com> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread From: Alex Schuilenburg @ 2008-04-04 16:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jiri Gaisler; +Cc: ecos-discuss Jiri Gaisler wrote on 2008-04-04 16:11: > > > Andrew Lunn wrote: > >>>>> I have looked at the files in eCos Pro, and majority of it has >>>>> the GPL license with the linking exception. Is there anything that >>>>> would prevent me from merging updated files from eCos Pro back >>>>> to the open CVS version? >>>> AFAICS, no, given that you legally received your copy of eCos Pro. >>> eCoscentric provides a free eCos Pro kit for the Nios processor, >>> which anyone can download. This would mean that all GPL files in >>> the kit are free to be merged with the open CVS. Or is there some >>> other catch ...? >> >> The catch is that in order for it to be included into anoncvs, the >> owner of the code has to agree and transfer the copyright to FSF. So i >> cannot just pick up eCosCentric code and commit it. eCosCentric have >> to agree to it as copyright owner. > > So if I contribute code to the anoncvs, I assign the copyright to FSF. > If eCoscentric includes the code into eCos Pro, it will still bear the > FSF copyright. If they then make a bug fix, any licensee of eCos Pro > should be able to submit the fix into anoncvs, since the copyright > is still with FSF and the code is still GPL. Have I got this right? > Or do I need to assign the copyright to eCoscentric before it is > included in the eCos Pro distribution? No. You would need to assign the code to the FSF. We (eCosCentric) are no longer accepting contributions. The FSF are now the keepers of the eCos copyright and to whom we assign any of our eCos contributions, just like the rest of the eCos community. As for submitting fixes from eCosPro to anoncvs, copyrightable fixes can only be submitted by the copyright holder, which we do from time to time. > > > What I am trying to avoid is a fork of a potential contribution, > with one version in anoncvs and some other version in eCos Pro. As Andrew says, anyone can fork the code. It is GPL code after all. The only condition is they have to adhere to the license. Anyway, forking is not in our interest, never mind the community's. We want the benefits that contributions to eCos bring, as does everyone else. eCosPro is not a fork, it is a superset of eCos. See http://www.ecoscentric.com/ecos/ecospro.shtml What you seem to be suggesting is that you want everyone else *but* eCosCentric to benefit from your potential contribution. > > Jiri. > -- Alex Schuilenburg Managing Director/CEO eCosCentric Limited Tel: +44 1223 245571 Barnwell House, Barnwell Drive Fax: +44 1223 248712 Cambridge, CB5 8UU, UK www.ecoscentric.com Reg in England and Wales, Reg No 4422071 ** Visit us at ESC Silicon Valley <http://www.embedded.com/esc/sv> ** ** April 15-17 2008, Booth 3012, San Jose Convention Center ** -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <47F65C78.5050005@gaisler.com>]
* Re: [ECOS] Are copyright assignments detrimental to eCos? [not found] ` <47F65C78.5050005@gaisler.com> @ 2008-04-04 23:18 ` Jiri Gaisler 2008-04-05 0:44 ` Jonathan Larmour 2008-04-07 12:18 ` Alex Schuilenburg 0 siblings, 2 replies; 35+ messages in thread From: Jiri Gaisler @ 2008-04-04 23:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ecos-discuss Alex Schuilenburg wrote: > Anyway, forking is not in our interest, never mind the community's. We > want the benefits that contributions to eCos bring, as does everyone > else. eCosPro is not a fork, it is a superset of eCos. See > http://www.ecoscentric.com/ecos/ecospro.shtml > > What you seem to be suggesting is that you want everyone else *but* > eCosCentric to benefit from your potential contribution. What I am saying is that I want everyone to benefit from our contribution, *and* from potential derivate work in form of bug fixes. Just like the linux kernel. Everyone sees the same kernel code, while applications and drivers can be proprietary if desired. It seems to me that insisting on FSF copyright transfer blocks this in some way. We are still maintaining our own ecos fork (superset), but I would rather see everything merged to anoncvs. But I respect the policy of the anoncvs maintainers and eCoscentric, so we will keep it as is for them time being. Jiri. -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: [ECOS] Are copyright assignments detrimental to eCos? 2008-04-04 23:18 ` Jiri Gaisler @ 2008-04-05 0:44 ` Jonathan Larmour 2008-04-07 12:18 ` Alex Schuilenburg 1 sibling, 0 replies; 35+ messages in thread From: Jonathan Larmour @ 2008-04-05 0:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jiri Gaisler; +Cc: ecos-discuss Jiri Gaisler wrote: > Alex Schuilenburg wrote: > >> Anyway, forking is not in our interest, never mind the community's. We >> want the benefits that contributions to eCos bring, as does everyone >> else. eCosPro is not a fork, it is a superset of eCos. See >> http://www.ecoscentric.com/ecos/ecospro.shtml >> >> What you seem to be suggesting is that you want everyone else *but* >> eCosCentric to benefit from your potential contribution. > > > What I am saying is that I want everyone to benefit from our contribution, > *and* from potential derivate work in form of bug fixes. Just like the > linux kernel. In this respect it's no different from the linux kernel. Someone can take the linux kernel, make changes and bug fixes and distribute it. And by virtue of the GPL the people who get any kernel binaries can get the source code that goes with it and all is as it should be. That doesn't mean they have to be posted on the linux-kernel list, nor provided to Linus for inclusion in the source base, and indeed many are not. What difference do you think there is? > Everyone sees the same kernel code, while applications and > drivers can be proprietary if desired. And that's what happens with eCosPro - all the source code is supplied, and the only bits that can't be redistributed freely are some portions we have written solely ourselves (not derived from public eCos sources) as extensions and add-ons. For example we have an entirely new MultiMedia Filesystem. That's an extension we wrote ourselves, and is no different conceptually from people writing their own userspace filesystem on Linux (such as with FUSE). Just like with a FUSE filesystem an extension should be able to be proprietary[1]. The fact that eCos, unlike Linux, links into a single kernel image without such a clear kernel boundary isn't important for the principle of thing - that's the reason for the exception clause with the GPL which we have. > It seems to me that insisting on > FSF copyright transfer blocks this in some way. We are still maintaining > our own ecos fork (superset), but I would rather see everything merged > to anoncvs. But I respect the policy of the anoncvs maintainers and > eCoscentric, so we will keep it as is for them time being. Obviously you don't have to contribute changes either :-). But I don't think you need have the worry you seem to have. Anything contributed to eCos gets owned by the FSF, and put under the eCos GPL+exception license de facto forever[2]. No-one can change that (except the FSF, and as the creators of free software they never would). And anyone who makes fixes to those source files has to keep it with that license and distribute them under the GPL terms. Just like the Linux kernel. Does that clear things up? Jifl (eCosCentric hat) [1] <http://fuse.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/FAQ#Under_what_conditions_may_I_distribute_a_filesystem_which_uses_libfusex3f.> [2] Or equivalently anyway - because of single ownership in the FSF, we can change the license wording if there is a legal need. We couldn't do that with multiple owners - we'd need everyone's permission. -- eCosCentric Limited http://www.eCosCentric.com/ The eCos experts Barnwell House, Barnwell Drive, Cambridge, UK. Tel: +44 1223 245571 Registered in England and Wales: Reg No 4422071. ------["The best things in life aren't things."]------ Opinions==mine -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: [ECOS] Are copyright assignments detrimental to eCos? 2008-04-04 23:18 ` Jiri Gaisler 2008-04-05 0:44 ` Jonathan Larmour @ 2008-04-07 12:18 ` Alex Schuilenburg [not found] ` <47FA1CE4.8090708@gaisler.com> 1 sibling, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread From: Alex Schuilenburg @ 2008-04-07 12:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jiri Gaisler; +Cc: ecos-discuss Jiri Gaisler wrote on 2008-04-04 17:51: > > Alex Schuilenburg wrote: >> Anyway, forking is not in our interest, never mind the community's. >> We want the benefits that contributions to eCos bring, as does >> everyone else. eCosPro is not a fork, it is a superset of eCos. See >> http://www.ecoscentric.com/ecos/ecospro.shtml >> >> What you seem to be suggesting is that you want everyone else *but* >> eCosCentric to benefit from your potential contribution. > > What I am saying is that I want everyone to benefit from our > contribution, > *and* from potential derivate work in form of bug fixes. Just like the > linux kernel. Everyone sees the same kernel code, while applications and > drivers can be proprietary if desired. It seems to me that insisting on > FSF copyright transfer blocks this in some way. You are incorrect. Speak to the FSF or a copyright and licensing lawyer if you don't believe me. Copyright assignment in this case has nothing to do with what you suggest. The copyright assignment of eCos to the FSF is all about protection of the code and guaranteeing that it remains free to all. I don't know of *any* free open source software license that does what you suggest. Free Open Source licenses may force you to make the changes to the source code available (GPL and derivatives), but I now of none that force you to contribute or publish changes. And just to give a totally hypothetical example: if all your code and changes are GPL+ex, there is nothing legally stopping any commercial organisation which legally obtains your source code from integrating these changes into their own source code base, add their own fixes/improvements and then distributing these changes as part of their *own* eCos distribution - as long as the license remains the same(ish - for the nitpickers ;-). In fact some companies make a living doing exactly this with other free open source projects. Of course these companies could not contribute your code to the FSF, since they do not own the copyright, but they could contribute their changes (not that the changes would IMHO be accepted into eCos anoncvs because the changes would apply to code that does not exist, so pretty pointless). These companies could also not prevent *you* from taking this contribution to eCos anoncvs and integrating it into *your* own distribution either. I would also just like to point out that you also *cannot* then integrate any changes that have been published under the GPL or GPL+ex and integrate those changes into a non-GPL distribution. e.g. Improvements to dual licensed code (e.g. GPL and a proprietary license) that are published under the GPL license cannot then be brought into the proprietary license without making all that code GPL as well (unless of course you held the copyright of the improved code). Think back to what used to happen when eCos copyright was held by Red Hat and licensed under the RHEPL - Red Hat could take *your* RHEPL contributions and relicense them under a proprietary commercial license. Ever wonder why eCos was relicensed under GPL+ex and the copyright contributed to the FSF? And FAOD, *every* copyright contribution made to eCosCentric while the switch of eCos copyright from Red Hat to the FSF was happening has been contributed to the FSF, just as we said we would, and has *never* been published under any license other than GPL+ex nor been released as part of eCosPro *before* being integrated into eCos anoncvs. > We are still maintaining > our own ecos fork (superset), but I would rather see everything merged > to anoncvs. But I respect the policy of the anoncvs maintainers and > eCoscentric, so we will keep it as is for them time being. [...] If you claim superset rather than branch, I assume you must also be doing regular internal merges with anoncvs to allow your users to benefit from any fixes and improvements that go into the main eCos anoncvs source base? Do users of your own port have to contribute the copyright of changes or improvements to your code to you as well (to maintain the legal status and protection of copyright that eCos currently enjoys), and where are the changes published? These are all questions you need to think about when keeping your own eCos tree. Anyway, nobody is trying to force you to contribute here. I am just trying to show you some of the benefits contributions can make to your users, the community as well as yourself. Your changes and improvements are yours to do with as you see fit, subject to licensing of course ;-) -- Alex Schuilenburg Managing Director/CEO eCosCentric Limited Tel: +44 1223 245571 Barnwell House, Barnwell Drive Fax: +44 1223 248712 Cambridge, CB5 8UU, UK www.ecoscentric.com Reg in England and Wales, Reg No 4422071 ** Visit us at ESC Silicon Valley <http://www.embedded.com/esc/sv> ** ** April 15-17 2008, Booth 3012, San Jose Convention Center ** -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <47FA1CE4.8090708@gaisler.com>]
* Re: [ECOS] Are copyright assignments detrimental to eCos? [not found] ` <47FA1CE4.8090708@gaisler.com> @ 2008-04-07 13:17 ` Jiri Gaisler 2008-04-07 13:28 ` Gary Thomas 0 siblings, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread From: Jiri Gaisler @ 2008-04-07 13:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alex Schuilenburg; +Cc: ecos-discuss Alex Schuilenburg wrote: > Anyway, nobody is trying to force you to contribute here. I am just > trying to show you some of the benefits contributions can make to your > users, the community as well as yourself. Your changes and improvements > are yours to do with as you see fit, subject to licensing of course ;-) I don't see the benefit to our users if there are two different versions of our contribution, one in the anoncvs and one in the Pro. In such case, I prefer to have our own fork where we have control over what goes into our code modules and where we are able to support it. The development model for kernels like RTEMS and linux seems more reliable to me. There is only one code base and all testing, validation and bug reporting is done on the same set of code. I believe this was also the case for eCos as long as Cygnus maintained the code. Going back to this model could in fact benefit eCos Pro, since it would create a much larger user base for the Pro code, potentially finding more bugs and provide more improvements. Just my 2 cents anyhow ... Jiri. -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: [ECOS] Are copyright assignments detrimental to eCos? 2008-04-07 13:17 ` Jiri Gaisler @ 2008-04-07 13:28 ` Gary Thomas [not found] ` <47FA2438.4090904@gaisler.com> 2008-04-07 15:51 ` Gregg Levine 0 siblings, 2 replies; 35+ messages in thread From: Gary Thomas @ 2008-04-07 13:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jiri Gaisler; +Cc: Alex Schuilenburg, ecos-discuss Jiri Gaisler wrote: > Alex Schuilenburg wrote: > >> Anyway, nobody is trying to force you to contribute here. I am just >> trying to show you some of the benefits contributions can make to your >> users, the community as well as yourself. Your changes and >> improvements are yours to do with as you see fit, subject to licensing >> of course ;-) > > I don't see the benefit to our users if there are two different versions > of our contribution, one in the anoncvs and one in the Pro. In such > case, I prefer to have our own fork where we have control over what > goes into our code modules and where we are able to support it. > > The development model for kernels like RTEMS and linux seems more > reliable to me. There is only one code base and all testing, validation At least as far as Linux goes - this is malarkey. There are more versions of Linux out there than you could count, mostly for those platforms or environments where the code either is not acceptable into the public tree or simply kept back for commercial advantage. For example, you don't see the code for the LinkSys routers in the public tree... > and bug reporting is done on the same set of code. I believe this was also > the case for eCos as long as Cygnus maintained the code. Going back to > this model could in fact benefit eCos Pro, since it would create a much > larger user base for the Pro code, potentially finding more bugs and > provide > more improvements. Just my 2 cents anyhow ... > > Jiri. > -- ------------------------------------------------------------ Gary Thomas | Consulting for the MLB Associates | Embedded world ------------------------------------------------------------ -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <47FA2438.4090904@gaisler.com>]
* Re: [ECOS] Are copyright assignments detrimental to eCos? [not found] ` <47FA2438.4090904@gaisler.com> @ 2008-04-07 13:44 ` Jiri Gaisler 0 siblings, 0 replies; 35+ messages in thread From: Jiri Gaisler @ 2008-04-07 13:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gary Thomas; +Cc: Alex Schuilenburg, ecos-discuss Gary Thomas wrote: >> The development model for kernels like RTEMS and linux seems more >> reliable to me. There is only one code base and all testing, validation > > At least as far as Linux goes - this is malarkey. There are more versions > of Linux out there than you could count, mostly for those platforms or > environments where the code either is not acceptable into the public > tree or simply kept back for commercial advantage. For example, you don't > see the code for the LinkSys routers in the public tree... All serious maintainers use the code from kernel.org. Sure, there are derivates that goes into various products, but the major development, testing, validation and bug reporting is done on the kernel.org sources. Same thing with RTEMS, where the (public) CVS from rtems.org is used. Jiri. -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: [ECOS] Are copyright assignments detrimental to eCos? 2008-04-07 13:28 ` Gary Thomas [not found] ` <47FA2438.4090904@gaisler.com> @ 2008-04-07 15:51 ` Gregg Levine 1 sibling, 0 replies; 35+ messages in thread From: Gregg Levine @ 2008-04-07 15:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ecos-discuss On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Gary Thomas <gary@mlbassoc.com> wrote: > Jiri Gaisler wrote: > > > Alex Schuilenburg wrote: > > > > > > > Anyway, nobody is trying to force you to contribute here. I am just > trying to show you some of the benefits contributions can make to your > users, the community as well as yourself. Your changes and improvements are > yours to do with as you see fit, subject to licensing of course ;-) > > > > > > > I don't see the benefit to our users if there are two different versions > > of our contribution, one in the anoncvs and one in the Pro. In such > > case, I prefer to have our own fork where we have control over what > > goes into our code modules and where we are able to support it. > > > > The development model for kernels like RTEMS and linux seems more > > reliable to me. There is only one code base and all testing, validation > > > > At least as far as Linux goes - this is malarkey. There are more versions > of Linux out there than you could count, mostly for those platforms or > environments where the code either is not acceptable into the public > tree or simply kept back for commercial advantage. For example, you don't > see the code for the LinkSys routers in the public tree... > > > > > and bug reporting is done on the same set of code. I believe this was also > > the case for eCos as long as Cygnus maintained the code. Going back to > > this model could in fact benefit eCos Pro, since it would create a much > > larger user base for the Pro code, potentially finding more bugs and > provide > > more improvements. Just my 2 cents anyhow ... > > > > Jiri. > > > > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Gary Thomas | Consulting for the > MLB Associates | Embedded world > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > -- > > Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos > and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss > > Hello! Until now I've been largely an observer on this one. But regarding Gary's argument regarding the code for the LinkSys routers, there's a very good reason why it is not publicly available, and until a few years ago, not at all available. The company still refuses to believe that the GPLv2 (or GPLv3) license still applies to what they either build or make arrangements to build. And it happens that for some items they even refused to release the source code for a few portions, leaving it as an OCO (Object Code Only) binary. Which was a fact which frustrated a lot of end users of this device. By the time the firm reached its current design strategy time-period, they came close. Very close in fact. However they still have that peculiar opinion of their products and the licensing methods. And I don't know how many of you remember, but that firm only started releasing the code under what looked to be an out of court settlement on the issue. And please note that I am not a lawyer, just someone who uses the eCOS code for many ideas. (And reads one too many books taking place in a certain lawyer's time and place.) -- Gregg C Levine gregg.drwho8@gmail.com "This signature was once found posting rude messages in English in the Moscow subway." -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: [ECOS] Are copyright assignments detrimental to eCos? [not found] ` <47F6450C.4090302@gaisler.com> 2008-04-04 15:17 ` Jiri Gaisler @ 2008-04-04 15:45 ` Andrew Lunn 1 sibling, 0 replies; 35+ messages in thread From: Andrew Lunn @ 2008-04-04 15:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jiri Gaisler; +Cc: ecos-discuss O.K. Now it is getting time for the IANAL and everything i say is wrong until you hear it from a copyright lawyer... > So if I contribute code to the anoncvs, I assign the copyright to FSF. > If eCoscentric includes the code into eCos Pro, it will still bear the > FSF copyright. Correct. > If they then make a bug fix, any licensee of eCos Pro > should be able to submit the fix into anoncvs, since the copyright > is still with FSF and the code is still GPL. Have I got this right? Nope. They own the copyright to the bug fix. They have to contribute it to FSF/anoncvs. This is why i expect eCosPro code will have both copyright eCosCentric as well as Copyright FSF. They are stating they own some parts of the code. If you were to fix the bug, you could contribute it to FSF/anoncvs or eCosCentric. If you contribute it to FSF/anoncvs, eCosCentric can then pull it into their tree and keep the FSF copyright on your bug fix. > What I am trying to avoid is a fork of a potential contribution, > with one version in anoncvs and some other version in eCos Pro. Not possible, as far as i understand. Anybody can fork any GPL code. What you may be able to do though is claim the code contains patents or some other intellectual properly which needs a license and give away a free license for code in anoncvs only and anybody who wants to use the code outside of anoncvs needs to pay a billion dollar license fee for the patents. This probably doesn't hold water, since how do you define what anoncvs is.... So you definitely need to talk to a lawyer.... Andrew -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: [ECOS] Are copyright assignments detrimental to eCos? 2008-04-04 14:58 ` Andrew Lunn [not found] ` <47F642D0.7000907@xylanta.com> [not found] ` <47F6450C.4090302@gaisler.com> @ 2008-04-04 15:20 ` Andy Jackson 2008-04-04 16:47 ` Markus Schaber 2008-04-07 8:00 ` Gary Thomas 2 siblings, 2 replies; 35+ messages in thread From: Andy Jackson @ 2008-04-04 15:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ecos-discuss; +Cc: andrew Andrew Lunn wrote: > On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 12:00:42PM +0200, Jiri Gaisler wrote: > >> Markus Schaber wrote: >> >> >>>> I have looked at the files in eCos Pro, and majority of it has >>>> the GPL license with the linking exception. Is there anything that >>>> would prevent me from merging updated files from eCos Pro back >>>> to the open CVS version? >>>> >>> AFAICS, no, given that you legally received your copy of eCos Pro. >>> >> eCoscentric provides a free eCos Pro kit for the Nios processor, >> which anyone can download. This would mean that all GPL files in >> the kit are free to be merged with the open CVS. Or is there some >> other catch ...? >> > > The catch is that in order for it to be included into anoncvs, the > owner of the code has to agree and transfer the copyright to FSF. So i > cannot just pick up eCosCentric code and commit it. eCosCentric have > to agree to it as copyright owner. > > >From an academic interest point of view, is this true for the parts that have been derived from existing GPL licenced files? Surely the whole point of the GPL is that you can't withhold a derivative work? Andy -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: [ECOS] Are copyright assignments detrimental to eCos? 2008-04-04 15:20 ` Andy Jackson @ 2008-04-04 16:47 ` Markus Schaber 2008-04-07 8:00 ` Gary Thomas 1 sibling, 0 replies; 35+ messages in thread From: Markus Schaber @ 2008-04-04 16:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ecos-discuss; +Cc: andy Hi, Andy, Andy Jackson <andy@xylanta.com> wrote: > > The catch is that in order for it to be included into anoncvs, the > > owner of the code has to agree and transfer the copyright to FSF. So i > > cannot just pick up eCosCentric code and commit it. eCosCentric have > > to agree to it as copyright owner. > > > From an academic interest point of view, is this true for the parts > that have been derived from existing GPL licenced files? Surely the > whole point of the GPL is that you can't withhold a derivative work? This is not a question of GPL here, it's a question of anoncvs maintainers policy. You cannot force anyone to accept code into their CVS tree. Regards, Markus -- Markus Schaber | Logical Tracking&Tracing International AG Dipl. Inf. | Software Development GIS Fight against software patents in Europe! www.ffii.org www.nosoftwarepatents.org -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: [ECOS] Are copyright assignments detrimental to eCos? 2008-04-04 15:20 ` Andy Jackson 2008-04-04 16:47 ` Markus Schaber @ 2008-04-07 8:00 ` Gary Thomas 1 sibling, 0 replies; 35+ messages in thread From: Gary Thomas @ 2008-04-07 8:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: andy; +Cc: ecos-discuss Some different words on this whole subject - the way I see it. I am not a lawyer - accept this as such. Andy Jackson wrote: > Andrew Lunn wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 12:00:42PM +0200, Jiri Gaisler wrote: >> >>> Markus Schaber wrote: >>> >>> >>>>> I have looked at the files in eCos Pro, and majority of it has >>>>> the GPL license with the linking exception. Is there anything that >>>>> would prevent me from merging updated files from eCos Pro back >>>>> to the open CVS version? >>>>> >>>> AFAICS, no, given that you legally received your copy of eCos Pro. >>>> >>> eCoscentric provides a free eCos Pro kit for the Nios processor, >>> which anyone can download. This would mean that all GPL files in >>> the kit are free to be merged with the open CVS. Or is there some >>> other catch ...? >>> >> >> The catch is that in order for it to be included into anoncvs, the >> owner of the code has to agree and transfer the copyright to FSF. So i >> cannot just pick up eCosCentric code and commit it. eCosCentric have >> to agree to it as copyright owner. >> >> > >From an academic interest point of view, is this true for the parts > that have been derived from existing GPL licenced files? Surely the > whole point of the GPL is that you can't withhold a derivative work? First of all, there should be nothing in eCos which was derived [purely] from a GPL environment, it has all been created either from scratch (at Cygnus -> Red Hat, or by contribution). Portions from other projects are included, but still respecting their license (e.g. the FreeBSD stack) IMO, the whole point of the GPL is about *rights*. If I distribute something which came from a GPL source, the recipient of that distribution must have at least as much right to the code as I did, *including* any changes or additions I might have made before distributing it. The GPL does not explicitly say that I have to give my changes back where I got them, in fact, I can claim copyright on those changes and still distribute them as I wish. This is the case of code distributed by eCosCentric (and indeed by Analogue & Micro, among others) - we've taken the public, GPL+ex code, made changes, additions, improvements, etc. Those who have received distributions of such material have the right to use and change the source code, but they don't gain ownership over it. In the case of FSF projects, we have all agreed that whatever we contribute into the pool becomes the property (copyright) of the FSF. No other entity (person, project or company) can claim ownership of such contributions, not even the original contributor. -- ------------------------------------------------------------ Gary Thomas | Consulting for the MLB Associates | Embedded world ------------------------------------------------------------ -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* RE: [ECOS] Are copyright assignments detrimental to eCos? [not found] ` <47F5F130.2030800@gaisler.com> 2008-04-04 9:36 ` Jiri Gaisler @ 2008-04-04 10:00 ` Chris Zimman 2008-04-04 15:09 ` Andrew Lunn 1 sibling, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread From: Chris Zimman @ 2008-04-04 10:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jiri Gaisler, Markus Schaber; +Cc: ecos-discuss > Does this mean that if we contribute some files to eCos under > this license and they end up in eCos Pro, any modifications to > them made by eCosCentric would have to be published and could be > merged back to the open version of eCos. The last sentence seems > to indicate this, I just want be sure. If eCosCentric owns the copyright, they can change the license at any time. If you make a contribution under GPL, I believe they still require an assignment statement if it's not a standalone piece of code (please correct me if I'm wrong here). > I have looked at the files in eCos Pro, and majority of it has > the GPL license with the linking exception. Is there anything that > would prevent me from merging updated files from eCos Pro back > to the open CVS version? OK, this is an interesting issue, which I've thought about a lot recently. So in the case of the tree that I have with ARM EABI support, it was derived from an eCosPro tree. I was considering putting parts of that code back into anon CVS, but I thought about it for a while, and this is what I arrived at: In my opinion, eCosCentric as an entity, is doing the most to help and support eCos at the moment. They rely on people paying them for eCosPro in order to put food on the table. I am in the situation where I can do enhancements to eCos as part of my job, but it's not my primary job, and I get paid either way. I want to help the community at large, but not at the expense of hurting eCosCentric, as I think that will hurt everyone in the long run. Without eCosCentric, there'd be nowhere to go for eCos support when you really need it. Sure, something else could spring up in their place, but it would face all of the same issues. In an ideal world, the publicly available eCos could have all the features of eCosPro and people would still pay eCosCentric for support. Unfortunately though, things don't really seem to go that way. If people can get something entirely for free (as in beer), that's usually the end of it. As I understand it, they have the intention of releasing the code back into anon CVS at some point, but they need to recoup their development costs on it first. It's not an ideal situation from all perspectives, but it's reality. What I've elected to do instead is to honor a sort of gentlemen's agreement, where I'm not releasing the GPL'd bits from eCosPro back into the tree. When eCosCentric feels the time is right, I'll let them do it. This includes the enhancements that I've made. I've contributed them back to eCosCentric if they wish to include them. I don't think their fees are in any way egregious compared to what you'd pay for a commercial RTOS ($40K+ USD for a base license), so I'm happy to continue to support them. Anyhow, that's my $.02 on the issue. --Chris -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: [ECOS] Are copyright assignments detrimental to eCos? 2008-04-04 10:00 ` Chris Zimman @ 2008-04-04 15:09 ` Andrew Lunn 2008-04-04 15:46 ` Chris Zimman 0 siblings, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread From: Andrew Lunn @ 2008-04-04 15:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Chris Zimman; +Cc: Jiri Gaisler, Markus Schaber, ecos-discuss On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 05:35:47AM -0400, Chris Zimman wrote: > > Does this mean that if we contribute some files to eCos under > > this license and they end up in eCos Pro, any modifications to > > them made by eCosCentric would have to be published and could be > > merged back to the open version of eCos. The last sentence seems > > to indicate this, I just want be sure. > > If eCosCentric owns the copyright, they can change the license at any time. > If you make a contribution under GPL, I believe they still require an > assignment > statement if it's not a standalone piece of code (please correct me if I'm > wrong here). > > > I have looked at the files in eCos Pro, and majority of it has > > the GPL license with the linking exception. Is there anything that > > would prevent me from merging updated files from eCos Pro back > > to the open CVS version? > > OK, this is an interesting issue, which I've thought about a lot recently. > > So in the case of the tree that I have with ARM EABI support, it was derived > from an eCosPro tree. You could contribute it back if you wanted to, but you would have to rebase the patch to the open anoncvs tree, not eCosCentric's tree. But in some respects it does not necessarily help you. You want the patches in the next tree you get from eCosCentric as part of your support contract and there is no guarantee eCosCentric will pull the changes from the open anoncvs tree into there eCosPro tree. So you end up contributing it to both to get the most advantage out of it. Andrew -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* RE: [ECOS] Are copyright assignments detrimental to eCos? 2008-04-04 15:09 ` Andrew Lunn @ 2008-04-04 15:46 ` Chris Zimman 0 siblings, 0 replies; 35+ messages in thread From: Chris Zimman @ 2008-04-04 15:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andrew Lunn; +Cc: ecos-discuss > You could contribute it back if you wanted to, but you would have to > rebase the patch to the open anoncvs tree, not eCosCentric's tree. But > in some respects it does not necessarily help you. You want the > patches in the next tree you get from eCosCentric as part of your > support contract and there is no guarantee eCosCentric will pull the > changes from the open anoncvs tree into there eCosPro tree. So you end > up contributing it to both to get the most advantage out of it. That wasn't really the point I was trying to make. I have chosen not to put it into anon CVS at the moment because eCosCentric may want to offer it as part of eCosPro. I think, at some point, they will release an updated tree for anon CVS. If I were to release it, I would probably just fork the tree anyhow. --Chris -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: [ECOS] Are copyright assignments detrimental to eCos? 2008-04-03 9:38 ` Markus Schaber [not found] ` <47F4A57F.1080501@gaisler.com> @ 2008-04-03 18:46 ` Bart Veer 1 sibling, 0 replies; 35+ messages in thread From: Bart Veer @ 2008-04-03 18:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Markus Schaber; +Cc: ecos-discuss >>>>> "Markus" == Markus Schaber <schabi@logix-tt.com> writes: >> > Clearly copyright assignments slow things down. >> > >> > Why copyright assignments at this point? >> > >> > Is it an anachronism? >> >> Legal protection. Markus> I understand this point, but in some legislations, a full Markus> copyright assignment is not possible legally. Markus> Additionally, our company has the policy that any Markus> substantial contribution must be copy-lefted, so no-one Markus> else can make closed-source derivates. Markus> Copyright assignment creates a single point of failure Markus> against closed-source derivates, weakening the copyleft. Markus> Spread Copyright protects against such a single point of Markus> failure. A nice example were the latest tries to buyout Markus> linux - it is impossible to get all the licenses of some Markus> thousand independent contributors. Markus> But imagine someone undermining/bribing the FSF[1], he can Markus> then legally relicense all those GNU software which Markus> requires copyright assignment. Yes, there is a theoretical risk that the FSF be taken over by some evil empire or other. I do not know the full details of the FSF's charter but I suspect it has built-in protection against that sort of thing. Also, as part of the copyright assignment process the FSF guarantees that the software will remain free. So even if there was a hostile takeover, it would be legally rather difficult to turn any of the assigned software proprietary or anything like that. Spread copyright has its own risks. Suppose that the evil empire instead "persuades" various politicians to pass some new software copyright legislation which, as an unfortunate side effect, makes it illegal to distribute GPL'd software. There is nothing unusual about big companies lobbying for legislation, e.g. the music industry. In this scenario, the FSF could tweak the GPL license for all assigned code to work around the damaged legislation, to the best of the FSF's lawyers abilities. Now consider a project with spread copyright like the Linux kernel. It would be necessary to contact every contributor and get them to agree to a licensing change. Any code where the contributor could no longer be contacted, or refused to agree to the change, would have to be taken out and possibly replaced. Until all that had been sorted out nobody would be allowed to distribute the Linux kernel. OK, there would be legal challenges, workarounds like distributing the kernel from another country with different laws, etc. Still, having a central body holding the copyrights does make it a lot easier to respond to such legal issues. Bart -- Bart Veer eCos Configuration Architect eCosCentric Limited The eCos experts http://www.ecoscentric.com/ Barnwell House, Barnwell Drive, Cambridge, UK. Tel: +44 1223 245571 Registered in England and Wales: Reg No 4422071. ** Visit us at ESC Silicon Valley <http://www.embedded.com/esc/sv> ** ** April 15-17 2008, Booth 3012, San Jose McEnery Convention Center ** -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: [ECOS] Are copyright assignments detrimental to eCos? 2008-04-02 19:01 ` Jonathan Larmour 2008-04-03 9:38 ` Markus Schaber @ 2008-04-03 19:01 ` Alexander Neundorf 1 sibling, 0 replies; 35+ messages in thread From: Alexander Neundorf @ 2008-04-03 19:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ecos-discuss On Wednesday 02 April 2008, Jonathan Larmour wrote: > Ãyvind Harboe wrote: ... > > Why should *all* of eCos require copyright assignments? > > All contributions at any rate. Is it really also necessary for ecosconfig and configtool ? They are useless without eCos and the only precompiled package I can find is very old and a bit buggy. Making contributing easier could help here, which could also include opening the host tools directories in cvs for more developers. Alex -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2008-04-07 15:22 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 35+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2008-03-28 2:59 [ECOS] Are copyright assignments detrimental to eCos? Øyvind Harboe 2008-04-02 19:01 ` Jonathan Larmour 2008-04-03 9:38 ` Markus Schaber [not found] ` <47F4A57F.1080501@gaisler.com> 2008-04-03 11:14 ` Jiri Gaisler 2008-04-03 18:49 ` Alexander Neundorf [not found] ` <47F55A47.7070602@gaisler.com> 2008-04-03 22:40 ` Jiri Gaisler 2008-04-04 4:11 ` Alexander Neundorf 2008-04-04 9:02 ` Markus Schaber [not found] ` <47F5F130.2030800@gaisler.com> 2008-04-04 9:36 ` Jiri Gaisler [not found] ` <20080404114231.7efcf59a@kingfisher.sec.intern.logix-tt.com> [not found] ` <47F5FC4A.2080401@gaisler.com> 2008-04-04 10:50 ` Jiri Gaisler 2008-04-04 15:33 ` Alex Schuilenburg 2008-04-04 16:09 ` Markus Schaber 2008-04-04 16:13 ` Markus Schaber 2008-04-04 16:25 ` Andrew Lunn 2008-04-04 16:26 ` Markus Schaber 2008-04-04 14:58 ` Andrew Lunn [not found] ` <47F642D0.7000907@xylanta.com> 2008-04-04 15:17 ` Andrew Lunn [not found] ` <47F6450C.4090302@gaisler.com> 2008-04-04 15:17 ` Jiri Gaisler 2008-04-04 16:06 ` Alex Schuilenburg [not found] ` <47F65C78.5050005@gaisler.com> 2008-04-04 23:18 ` Jiri Gaisler 2008-04-05 0:44 ` Jonathan Larmour 2008-04-07 12:18 ` Alex Schuilenburg [not found] ` <47FA1CE4.8090708@gaisler.com> 2008-04-07 13:17 ` Jiri Gaisler 2008-04-07 13:28 ` Gary Thomas [not found] ` <47FA2438.4090904@gaisler.com> 2008-04-07 13:44 ` Jiri Gaisler 2008-04-07 15:51 ` Gregg Levine 2008-04-04 15:45 ` Andrew Lunn 2008-04-04 15:20 ` Andy Jackson 2008-04-04 16:47 ` Markus Schaber 2008-04-07 8:00 ` Gary Thomas 2008-04-04 10:00 ` Chris Zimman 2008-04-04 15:09 ` Andrew Lunn 2008-04-04 15:46 ` Chris Zimman 2008-04-03 18:46 ` Bart Veer 2008-04-03 19:01 ` Alexander Neundorf
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).