From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30944 invoked by alias); 5 Apr 2008 00:44:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 30935 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Apr 2008 00:44:21 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from 204-133-123-27.dia.static.slbbi.com (HELO mail.chez-thomas.org) (204.133.123.27) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 05 Apr 2008 00:44:04 +0000 Received: by mail.chez-thomas.org (Postfix, from userid 999) id D947768C80A3; Fri, 4 Apr 2008 18:44:02 -0600 (MDT) Received: from hermes.chez-thomas.org (hermes_local [192.168.1.101]) by mail.chez-thomas.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CB1068C8097; Fri, 4 Apr 2008 18:44:00 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <47F6CB4F.9070409@mlbassoc.com> Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 08:00:00 -0000 From: Gary Thomas User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080226) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: andy@xylanta.com CC: 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> <47F64681.3090600@xylanta.com> In-Reply-To: <47F64681.3090600@xylanta.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/msg00098.txt.bz2 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