From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9002 invoked by alias); 4 Apr 2008 15:11:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 8990 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Apr 2008 15:11:04 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail175c2.megamailservers.com (HELO mail175c2.megamailservers.com) (69.49.111.175) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Apr 2008 15:10:44 +0000 X-Authenticated-User: jiri.gaisler.com Received: from [192.168.0.23] (c-d2c9e253.93-16-64736c12.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se [83.226.201.210]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail175c2.megamailservers.com (8.13.6.20060614/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m34FAdfE025938 for ; Fri, 4 Apr 2008 11:10:41 -0400 Message-Id: <200804041510.m34FAdfE025938@mail175c2.megamailservers.com> Message-ID: <47F6450C.4090302@gaisler.com> Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 15:17:00 -0000 From: Jiri Gaisler User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.12) Gecko/20080201 SeaMonkey/1.1.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ecos-discuss@ecos.sourceware.org References: <20080403112347.68e481c9@kingfisher.sec.intern.logix-tt.com> <200804030937.m339bj00013603@mail168c2.megamailservers.com> <200804032050.20913.neundorf@kde.org> <200804032228.m33MSkCg027848@mail168c2.megamailservers.com> <20080404104457.35553e0a@kingfisher.sec.intern.logix-tt.com> <200804040912.m349CrYq028389@mail176c2.megamailservers.com> <20080404114231.7efcf59a@kingfisher.sec.intern.logix-tt.com> <47F5FC4A.2080401@gaisler.com> <20080404145330.GM7929@lunn.ch> In-Reply-To: <20080404145330.GM7929@lunn.ch> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact ecos-discuss-help@ecos.sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-discuss-owner@ecos.sourceware.org Subject: Re: [ECOS] Are copyright assignments detrimental to eCos? X-SW-Source: 2008-04/txt/msg00080.txt.bz2 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