* [ECOS] APB - Copyright assignment @ 2009-10-06 9:17 Øyvind Harboe 2009-10-06 13:34 ` Alex Schuilenburg 0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Øyvind Harboe @ 2009-10-06 9:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: eCos Disuss Does anyone know how I could get in touch with Graham Henderson <graham615@yahoo.com>. He wrote the TSE driver for nios2ecos and we either need a copyright assignment, remove the TSE driver, rewrite it or live without the copyright assignment. There is nothing wrong with the eCos license and no copyright assignment, except that if, eventually, nios2ecos is to become part of the official eCos repository then the copyright assignment to FSF is a prerequisite. -- Øyvind Harboe http://www.zylin.com/zy1000.html ARM7 ARM9 ARM11 XScale Cortex JTAG debugger and flash programmer -- 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] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [ECOS] APB - Copyright assignment 2009-10-06 9:17 [ECOS] APB - Copyright assignment Øyvind Harboe @ 2009-10-06 13:34 ` Alex Schuilenburg 2009-10-06 14:31 ` Øyvind Harboe 2009-10-06 14:37 ` Edgar Grimberg 0 siblings, 2 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: Alex Schuilenburg @ 2009-10-06 13:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Øyvind Harboe; +Cc: eCos Disuss Ãyvind Harboe wrote on 2009-10-06 10:16: > Does anyone know how I could get in touch with Graham Henderson > <graham615@yahoo.com>. > > He wrote the TSE driver for nios2ecos and we either need a copyright > assignment, remove the TSE driver, rewrite it or live without the > copyright assignment. > > There is nothing wrong with the eCos license and no copyright > assignment, except that if, eventually, nios2ecos is to become > part of the official eCos repository then the copyright assignment > to FSF is a prerequisite. > Warning: IANAL. Actually, it is not necessarily the case that you can live without the copyright assignment, even if it does not become part of the official repository. One of the strong aspects of eCos is in its licensing and copyright assignments. Users of eCos can rest assured that they will not be pulled up on some copyright or patent violation, license fee demand or similar. This is mainly because we insist that any major contribution is assigned to the FSF. Imagine having to do a product recall on an embedded device using eCos simply because SCO^W some company wants to cash in. It gives us a trace history of the origins of all of the code. Of course this is not 100% foolproof because a contributor could misrepresent their contribution or unwittingly violate some patent, but then they are the ones who will be liable for damages and the regular user has a way out. So without proper attribution and/or licensing of the code, that portion of the code deviates from the type of security users can expect (against law suits etc) when using any eCos distribution. So your options in the long term really are: a copyright assignment; rewrite the TSE driver; or remove it. -- Alex Schuilenburg >>>> Visit us at ESC-UK http://www.embedded.co.uk <<<< >>>> Oct 7-8 on Stand 433 at FIVE ISC, Farnborough <<<< -- 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] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [ECOS] APB - Copyright assignment 2009-10-06 13:34 ` Alex Schuilenburg @ 2009-10-06 14:31 ` Øyvind Harboe 2009-10-06 15:06 ` Alex Schuilenburg 2009-10-06 14:37 ` Edgar Grimberg 1 sibling, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Øyvind Harboe @ 2009-10-06 14:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alex Schuilenburg; +Cc: eCos Disuss Of course copyright assignment has nothing to do with eCos as such. The same problem exists with *any* code you include. In fact eCos CVS contains lots of code where FSF does not hold the copyright. jim tcl for starters but I'm sure there's lots more. E.g. libmicrohttpd is in the process of being relicensed to GPL w/exception instead of LGPL. libmicrohttpd "just works" with eCos so it will never become part of eCos(at least to me that makes no sense). So there one has to decide if one is happy with GPL + exception and no copyright assignment to FSF(or someone other entity). Risks are everywhere when doing business, I've tried not to fuel any FUD w.r.t. open source above. Check your legal counsel and consider carefully copyrights and licensing for all projects... -- Øyvind Harboe http://www.zylin.com/zy1000.html ARM7 ARM9 ARM11 XScale Cortex JTAG debugger and flash programmer -- 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] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [ECOS] APB - Copyright assignment 2009-10-06 14:31 ` Øyvind Harboe @ 2009-10-06 15:06 ` Alex Schuilenburg 2009-10-06 15:19 ` Øyvind Harboe 0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Alex Schuilenburg @ 2009-10-06 15:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Øyvind Harboe; +Cc: eCos Disuss Ãyvind Harboe wrote on 2009-10-06 15:30: > Of course copyright assignment has nothing to do with > eCos as such. The same problem exists with *any* code > you include. > Of course! > In fact eCos CVS contains lots of code where > FSF does not hold the copyright. jim tcl for starters but > I'm sure there's lots more. > How about all the BSD tcpip, lwip code etc? The point I was making is that all the licenses of the code in the eCos repository has been determined to be compatible with the eCos GPL+ex license, and can be attributed to a source. Anyone can download and use the code in their product in the relative security that the code they are using has proper attribution and will not result in their application becoming GPL or subject to some law suit. The maintainers have worked hard to ensure that no pure GPL code becomes part of the repository. Sure, some GPL code is distributed separately but that code correctly has the necessary warnings so the user is aware what their responsibilities are and is not part of the mainstream distribution. The introduction of non-attributed code into an eCos distribution where the licensing, origins etc are uncertain starts to defeat what the maintainers and indeed eCosCentric have strived to maintain. The risk is that if any unattributed code turns out to be sour, you end up damaging the goodwill that has been built up around eCos in this regard. Hence why you need to be careful what you introduce into a public distribution of eCos. You cannot start to make small exceptions either as that simply becomes the thin edge of the wedge... Of course anybody building a product using eCos is not actually building an eCos distribution. They can do what they want with the code they use as long as they adhere to the respective licensing the code falls under. The risks of assembling code from arbitrary sources should then be understood by the developer and are then entirely of their own choosing. This is why it is important to maintain FSF assignment for the official eCos distribution - so that the code can both be attributed and defended, and any of the FUD spread by M$ et al thrown into the bin where it belongs... We encounter this kind of FUD with our customers all the time when they are thinking of using eCos over some other closed or proprietary RTOS, and it is a lot easier to persuade someone to chose eCos with the assignments in place. -- Alex Schuilenburg >>>> Visit us at ESC-UK http://www.embedded.co.uk <<<< >>>> Oct 7-8 on Stand 433 at FIVE ISC, Farnborough <<<< -- 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] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [ECOS] APB - Copyright assignment 2009-10-06 15:06 ` Alex Schuilenburg @ 2009-10-06 15:19 ` Øyvind Harboe 2009-10-06 16:04 ` Alex Schuilenburg 0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Øyvind Harboe @ 2009-10-06 15:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alex Schuilenburg; +Cc: eCos Disuss I think it is great that the eCos CVS repository has all the licensing carefully verified. Saves a bunch of work. However any specific project will almost certainly be a mix of non-eCos CVS + eCos CVS stuff. It makes little sense to me to put *all* code known to be compatible with eCos open source license into eCos CVS. -- Øyvind Harboe http://www.zylin.com/zy1000.html ARM7 ARM9 ARM11 XScale Cortex JTAG debugger and flash programmer -- 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] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [ECOS] APB - Copyright assignment 2009-10-06 15:19 ` Øyvind Harboe @ 2009-10-06 16:04 ` Alex Schuilenburg 0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: Alex Schuilenburg @ 2009-10-06 16:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Øyvind Harboe; +Cc: eCos Disuss Ãyvind Harboe wrote on 2009-10-06 16:19: > I think it is great that the eCos CVS repository has all the licensing > carefully verified. Saves a bunch of work. > > However any specific project will almost certainly be a mix of > non-eCos CVS + eCos CVS stuff. > > It makes little sense to me to put *all* code known to be > compatible with eCos open source license into eCos CVS. > I think you are missing my point. For any project of course there is no need to put any part of the code back into anoncvs. What I am trying to say is that by virtue of the FSF assignments and the care taken with pulling in code under other licenses into anoncvs, there is an inherent trust of the licensing and terms under which the code that is distributed under the "eCos" banner can be used. The name eCos carries with it a high level of security and goodwill. Users can trust that the code distributed under that name has been authenticated/attributed/etc and that they are free to use as the eCos licensing etc permits. However, if you start distributing code for other people to use in their products with an unknown legal status, you cannot incorporate that code into an eCos distribution without potentially damaging the trust and goodwill associated with the FSF assignment etc. You are misleading those users as to its legal status. If you are going to make that code available, it has to be made a separate download that is not associated with the eCos distribution and, IMHO, as a courtesy you should alert those users as to its unknown status. I am not saying at all that Graham etc has any evil intentions etc. In fact, probably the opposite. However, these need to be properly ratified etc. to become part of a public eCos distribution. -- Alex Schuilenburg >>>> Visit us at ESC-UK http://www.embedded.co.uk <<<< >>>> Oct 7-8 on Stand 433 at FIVE ISC, Farnborough <<<< -- 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] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [ECOS] APB - Copyright assignment 2009-10-06 13:34 ` Alex Schuilenburg 2009-10-06 14:31 ` Øyvind Harboe @ 2009-10-06 14:37 ` Edgar Grimberg 2009-10-06 15:12 ` Alex Schuilenburg 2009-10-06 15:26 ` Øyvind Harboe 1 sibling, 2 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: Edgar Grimberg @ 2009-10-06 14:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alex Schuilenburg; +Cc: Øyvind Harboe, eCos Disuss On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Alex Schuilenburg <alexs@ecoscentric.com> wrote: > Øyvind Harboe wrote on 2009-10-06 10:16: >> Does anyone know how I could get in touch with Graham Henderson >> <graham615@yahoo.com>. >> >> He wrote the TSE driver for nios2ecos and we either need a copyright >> assignment, remove the TSE driver, rewrite it or live without the >> copyright assignment. >> >> There is nothing wrong with the eCos license and no copyright >> assignment, except that if, eventually, nios2ecos is to become >> part of the official eCos repository then the copyright assignment >> to FSF is a prerequisite. >> > Warning: IANAL. > > Actually, it is not necessarily the case that you can live without the > copyright assignment, even if it does not become part of the official > repository. > > One of the strong aspects of eCos is in its licensing and copyright > assignments. Users of eCos can rest assured that they will not be > pulled up on some copyright or patent violation, license fee demand or > similar. This is mainly because we insist that any major contribution is > assigned to the FSF. Imagine having to do a product recall on an > embedded device using eCos simply because SCO^W some company wants to > cash in. It gives us a trace history of the origins of all of the code. > > Of course this is not 100% foolproof because a contributor could > misrepresent their contribution or unwittingly violate some patent, but > then they are the ones who will be liable for damages and the regular > user has a way out. > > So without proper attribution and/or licensing of the code, that portion > of the code deviates from the type of security users can expect (against > law suits etc) when using any eCos distribution. So your options in the > long term really are: a copyright assignment; rewrite the TSE driver; > or remove it. IANAL! Actually, this case is a bit special. Graham Henderson modified files that are under eCos (FSF) copyright. I don't know what the legal status of the files is now, but they are covered by the GPL (with exceptions, as defined by eCos). Of course, the best solution is for me to delete the files that were touched by Graham Henderson and rewrite them. This just got high on my priority list. On the other hand, Graham Henderson or his employer cannot come now and ask for compensation, since the files were under GPL (with exceptions) from the very first place. This is a case where the license of the code is clear, but the copyright assignment is not in place. There are numerous GPL projects that have the copyright of the file to the author of the file and the license is GPL. So, no need to worry, there's no evil company trying to take anybody's product off the market if that code is used... Regards, Edgar > > -- Alex Schuilenburg > > >>>> Visit us at ESC-UK http://www.embedded.co.uk <<<< > >>>> Oct 7-8 on Stand 433 at FIVE ISC, Farnborough <<<< > > > > -- > Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos > and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss > > -- Edgar Grimberg System Developer Zylin AS ZY1000 JTAG Debugger http://www.zylin.com/zy1000.html Phone: (+47) 51 63 25 00 -- 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] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [ECOS] APB - Copyright assignment 2009-10-06 14:37 ` Edgar Grimberg @ 2009-10-06 15:12 ` Alex Schuilenburg 2009-10-06 15:26 ` Øyvind Harboe 1 sibling, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: Alex Schuilenburg @ 2009-10-06 15:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Edgar Grimberg; +Cc: Øyvind Harboe, eCos Disuss Edgar Grimberg wrote on 2009-10-06 15:37: > [...] > On the other hand, Graham Henderson or his employer cannot come now > and ask for compensation, since the files were under GPL (with > exceptions) from the very first place. This is a case where the > license of the code is clear, but the copyright assignment is not in > place. There are numerous GPL projects that have the copyright of the > file to the author of the file and the license is GPL. So, no need to > worry, there's no evil company trying to take anybody's product off > the market if that code is used... > Copyright assignment and licensing is one thing, patents are another. That is why the FSF assignment is a necessary evil. Re-read your assignment to the FSF and see what it says about use of patents, IP, etc. -- Alex -- Alex Schuilenburg >>>> Visit us at ESC-UK http://www.embedded.co.uk <<<< >>>> Oct 7-8 on Stand 433 at FIVE ISC, Farnborough <<<< -- 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] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [ECOS] APB - Copyright assignment 2009-10-06 14:37 ` Edgar Grimberg 2009-10-06 15:12 ` Alex Schuilenburg @ 2009-10-06 15:26 ` Øyvind Harboe 2009-10-07 0:29 ` Jonathan Larmour 1 sibling, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Øyvind Harboe @ 2009-10-06 15:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Edgar Grimberg; +Cc: Alex Schuilenburg, eCos Disuss > Actually, this case is a bit special. Graham Henderson modified files > that are under eCos (FSF) copyright. I don't know what the legal > status of the files is now, but they are covered by the GPL (with > exceptions, as defined by eCos). The legal status is that FSF *and* Graham has a copyright claim to the files. The code was originally copyright to FSF and eCos license. The fact that Graham has a copyright claim to it is unproblematic for now. If in the future FSF wants to tinker with the eCos license, then the TSE becomes a problem, because without Graham's consent(or copyright assignment), the licensing for his changes can't be changed. > Of course, the best solution is for me to delete the files that were > touched by Graham Henderson and rewrite them. This just got high on my > priority list. Since the current situation is unproblematic, we can just wait to see if Graham comes out of the woodwork... Eventually when nios2ecos is mature enough to be committed to eCos CVS, then we either ditch the TSE or rewrite it. (The biggest problem with nios2ecos, IMHO, is that quartus must be installed to build. This makes it impossible e.g. to put build tool binaries under version control... I'm not 100% convinced that uClinux required quartus installed to build...) -- Øyvind Harboe http://www.zylin.com/zy1000.html ARM7 ARM9 ARM11 XScale Cortex JTAG debugger and flash programmer -- 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] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [ECOS] APB - Copyright assignment 2009-10-06 15:26 ` Øyvind Harboe @ 2009-10-07 0:29 ` Jonathan Larmour 2009-10-07 5:31 ` Øyvind Harboe 0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Jonathan Larmour @ 2009-10-07 0:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Øyvind Harboe; +Cc: Edgar Grimberg, Alex Schuilenburg, eCos Disuss Ãyvind Harboe wrote: >>Actually, this case is a bit special. Graham Henderson modified files >>that are under eCos (FSF) copyright. I don't know what the legal >>status of the files is now, but they are covered by the GPL (with >>exceptions, as defined by eCos). > > > The legal status is that FSF *and* Graham has a copyright claim > to the files. The code was originally copyright to FSF and eCos > license. The fact that Graham has a copyright claim to it is unproblematic > for now. Actually, that's not true. Graham may not have been entitled to submit such changes. He may not own what he writes - it may well be that his employer does. His employer may include an assignment of intellectual property in his contract. In our line of work, and with the typical background of contributors, this sort of contractual stipulation is common (not universal I know). This is why the copyright assignment is quite important for eCos - not so much for the assignment itself, but for the accompanying company disclaimer. The fact that the code was published under the eCos GPL is irrelevant - if it wasn't his code to publish, then theoretically the employer can pursue both the FSF and eCos users who possess the driver. Even worse if they have deployed it in a product. The fact the modifications took place in a GPL'd file does not, unfortunately help. In a hypothetical situation, imagine I stole some code from a company and posted it on the net, with the GPL licence on, or even added on to an existing GPL'd file. The company has not lost its rights to stop (or charge) users using that code because of the actions of someone who was not entitled to post it in the first place. It's possible there could be some sort of extenuating circumstances where we may be able to be more flexible, but without even being able to contact him, I for one wouldn't be happy. We have been more flexible when it's part of an established GPL-licence compatible open source project. There are still risks though, and for that matter we have some existing resulting problems there already, such as non-UCB BSD advertising clauses in the BSD stacks. It's not a route to indulge in. > If in the future FSF wants to tinker with the eCos license, then the TSE > becomes a problem, because without Graham's consent(or copyright > assignment), the licensing for his changes can't be changed. That's correct. >>Of course, the best solution is for me to delete the files that were >>touched by Graham Henderson and rewrite them. This just got high on my >>priority list. > > > Since the current situation is unproblematic, we can just wait to > see if Graham comes out of the woodwork... If he comes out of the woodwork, that would definitely be best. Perhaps you could search the niosforum for a new email address? I don't know if this may be able to lead to anything useful: http://www.latticesemi.com/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=523&threadid=5302&enterthread=y > (The biggest problem with nios2ecos, IMHO, is that quartus > must be installed to build. This makes it impossible e.g. to put > build tool binaries under version control... I'm not 100% convinced > that uClinux required quartus installed to build...) AIUI (although I haven't touched nios stuff before thank goodness), versioning would certainly be an issue with Quartus as IIRC they changed hardware configuration formats frequently between versions. Although I guess that as long as a currently supported and available version is used, that may be ok. Jifl -- --["No sense being pessimistic, it wouldn't work anyway"]-- 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] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [ECOS] APB - Copyright assignment 2009-10-07 0:29 ` Jonathan Larmour @ 2009-10-07 5:31 ` Øyvind Harboe 2009-10-07 14:34 ` [ECOS] " Grant Edwards 2009-10-07 23:10 ` [ECOS] " Alex Schuilenburg 0 siblings, 2 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: Øyvind Harboe @ 2009-10-07 5:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jonathan Larmour; +Cc: Edgar Grimberg, Alex Schuilenburg, eCos Disuss On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 2:29 AM, Jonathan Larmour <jifl@jifvik.org> wrote: > Øyvind Harboe wrote: >>> >>> Actually, this case is a bit special. Graham Henderson modified files >>> that are under eCos (FSF) copyright. I don't know what the legal >>> status of the files is now, but they are covered by the GPL (with >>> exceptions, as defined by eCos). >> >> >> The legal status is that FSF *and* Graham has a copyright claim >> to the files. The code was originally copyright to FSF and eCos >> license. The fact that Graham has a copyright claim to it is unproblematic >> for now. > > Actually, that's not true. Graham may not have been entitled to submit such > changes. He may not own what he writes - it may well be that his employer > does. His employer may include an assignment of intellectual property in his > contract. In our line of work, and with the typical background of > contributors, this sort of contractual stipulation is common (not universal > I know). So you're saying that someone can, mistakingly or otherwise, submit a piece of code to an open source project and that that person, even if we wrote it from scratch, was not at liberty to do so. Copyright assignments are great, but opinions do differ on whether GPL + exception alone gives sufficient protection or not. Risks are everywhere when doing business. I think it's good to have an enlightened discussion on this without contributing to open source FUD. Given a choice, I use eCos code w/copyright assignment, but otherwise GPL + exception and a reasonable confidence in that the original author was in his right to contribute the code suffices. Especially for smaller changes. It's great that the eCos CVS repository has everything thoroughly straighted out here. I think 5% of the code in Linux is from anonymous donors, i.e. anonymous copyright holders. The Linux crowd and eCos obviously have *very* different views on the risks here. Clearly the Linux crowd *knows* that heavy hitters will go after the ilk of SCO. Linux is "too big to fail" :-) eCos is not as fortunate and must look after itself. I don't want to belittle Graham's work, but he had tinkered with the TSE driver, abandoned it and then we made it work. Redoing the TSE driver or omitting it from nios2ecos is not a big deal, but since I believe the specific risk here is very slight, I'm more inclined to just wait. > If he comes out of the woodwork, that would definitely be best. Perhaps you > could search the niosforum for a new email address? > > I don't know if this may be able to lead to anything useful: > http://www.latticesemi.com/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=523&threadid=5302&enterthread=y Same email address. Would it be an idea to have a "missing persons" page on eCos? > AIUI (although I haven't touched nios stuff before thank goodness), > versioning would certainly be an issue with Quartus as IIRC they changed > hardware configuration formats frequently between versions. Although I guess > that as long as a currently supported and available version is used, that > may be ok. That's pretty much fixed now with the nios2ecos approach. If some new scheme should surface eventually, then we can deal with it at that point. nios2ecos works w/quartus 9 and probably as far back as 7 at least(which is probably as far back as anyone is likely to need to go...). Since we use scripts from quartus, we should be a bit more resilient against version changes than if we parsed the ptf ourselves. -- Øyvind Harboe http://www.zylin.com/zy1000.html ARM7 ARM9 ARM11 XScale Cortex JTAG debugger and flash programmer -- 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] 17+ messages in thread
* [ECOS] Re: APB - Copyright assignment 2009-10-07 5:31 ` Øyvind Harboe @ 2009-10-07 14:34 ` Grant Edwards 2009-10-07 16:31 ` Paul D. DeRocco 2009-10-07 23:10 ` [ECOS] " Alex Schuilenburg 1 sibling, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Grant Edwards @ 2009-10-07 14:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ecos-discuss On 2009-10-07, ??yvind Harboe <oyvind.harboe@zylin.com> wrote: > So you're saying that someone can, mistakingly or otherwise, submit > a piece of code to an open source project and that that person, even > if we wrote it from scratch, was not at liberty to do so. Definitely. The copyright for the _vast_ majority of the code written in the US belongs not to the person who wrote it but rather to that person's employer. -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! Am I in GRADUATE at SCHOOL yet? visi.com -- 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] 17+ messages in thread
* RE: [ECOS] Re: APB - Copyright assignment 2009-10-07 14:34 ` [ECOS] " Grant Edwards @ 2009-10-07 16:31 ` Paul D. DeRocco 2009-10-07 18:30 ` Grant Edwards 0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Paul D. DeRocco @ 2009-10-07 16:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: eCos Discuss > From: Grant Edwards > > Definitely. The copyright for the _vast_ majority of the code > written in the US belongs not to the person who wrote it but > rather to that person's employer. On the ground that software writers may spend 40 hours a week writing for their employers, but generally spend a lot less working on their on personal or hobby projects? I wonder how much of the contributions to eCos fall into the personal project category. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paul mailto:pderocco@ix.netcom.com -- 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] 17+ messages in thread
* [ECOS] Re: APB - Copyright assignment 2009-10-07 16:31 ` Paul D. DeRocco @ 2009-10-07 18:30 ` Grant Edwards 0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: Grant Edwards @ 2009-10-07 18:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ecos-discuss On 2009-10-07, Paul D. DeRocco <pderocco@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> From: Grant Edwards >> >> Definitely. The copyright for the _vast_ majority of the code >> written in the US belongs not to the person who wrote it but >> rather to that person's employer. > > On the ground that software writers may spend 40 hours a week writing for > their employers, but generally spend a lot less working on their on personal > or hobby projects? Yes. Firstly, few people who write software for an employer also do it as a hobby. Based on the people I've worked with over the past 25 years, I'd say less than 10%. Secondly, of those few that do software as a hobby, they spend a lot less than 40hrs a week at it. > I wonder how much of the contributions to eCos fall into > the personal project category. I would guess that very little of the eCos source code was done as a hobby project. The maintainers would have a much better idea, but most of the "donations" that I'm aware of were done on "company time" and then contributed by the employer. -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! ... the MYSTERIANS are at in here with my CORDUROY visi.com SOAP DISH!! -- 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] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [ECOS] APB - Copyright assignment 2009-10-07 5:31 ` Øyvind Harboe 2009-10-07 14:34 ` [ECOS] " Grant Edwards @ 2009-10-07 23:10 ` Alex Schuilenburg 2009-10-08 0:31 ` Paul D. DeRocco 1 sibling, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Alex Schuilenburg @ 2009-10-07 23:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Øyvind Harboe; +Cc: Jonathan Larmour, Edgar Grimberg, eCos Disuss Ãyvind Harboe wrote: > [...] > I think it's good to have an enlightened discussion on this without contributing > to open source FUD. Given a choice, I use eCos code w/copyright > assignment, but otherwise GPL + exception and a reasonable confidence > in that the original author was in his right to contribute the code suffices. > Also note that just copyright assignment is only a third of the story. With eCos assignments the contributor is also assigning the right to use the IP and any code which may be patented by the author in the future, as well as establishing true ownership of the code. For example, I may write code that utilises some patented technology which requires that I license the technology in order to be able to use it in my device. I can contribute the copyright and license the code under whatever license I choose, but the fact that I am using a patented algorithm or suchlike means that anyone using the code is subject to licensing the patent from the owner. Not me the author of the code or person assigning the copyright, but the owner of the patent. Yes, software patents suck especially when the code is bleeding obvious, so sign up to http://stopsoftwarepatents.eu/ This is second third of the story and why it is important for contributed code to have a proper assignment before it can be contributed into eCos. Namely, to prevent the inadvertent introduction of unlicensed use of patented technology into eCos and to allow the continued use of the technology within eCos should it later be patented by the author. The final third is simply ensuring that the code really is theirs to assign. As mentioned previously, most code is originally owned not by the authors, but by the company that employs them. It also is there to prevent someone taking another's code (under another license, GPL for example), rework it for eCos, and to contribute it to eCos as their own. You cannot take GPL code and modify it for contribution to eCos as that modified code is derived, and therefore GPL'ed, and so does not satisfy the acceptance criteria for eCos. (Unless of course you are the original author and owner of the copyright of the GPL code and hence can relicense it under whatever license you like - e.g. YAFFS). -- Alex Schuilenburg -- 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] 17+ messages in thread
* RE: [ECOS] APB - Copyright assignment 2009-10-07 23:10 ` [ECOS] " Alex Schuilenburg @ 2009-10-08 0:31 ` Paul D. DeRocco 2009-10-08 13:20 ` Alex Schuilenburg 0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Paul D. DeRocco @ 2009-10-08 0:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: eCos Discuss > From: Alex Schuilenburg > > This is second third of the story and why it is important for > contributed code to have a proper assignment before it can be > contributed into eCos. Namely, to prevent the inadvertent introduction > of unlicensed use of patented technology into eCos and to allow the > continued use of the technology within eCos should it later be patented > by the author. I would think if code was legitimately contributed to eCos, then it couldn't later be patented anyway. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paul mailto:pderocco@ix.netcom.com -- 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] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [ECOS] APB - Copyright assignment 2009-10-08 0:31 ` Paul D. DeRocco @ 2009-10-08 13:20 ` Alex Schuilenburg 0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: Alex Schuilenburg @ 2009-10-08 13:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: eCos Discuss Paul D. DeRocco wrote on 2009-10-08 01:31: >> From: Alex Schuilenburg >> >> This is second third of the story and why it is important for >> contributed code to have a proper assignment before it can be >> contributed into eCos. Namely, to prevent the inadvertent introduction >> of unlicensed use of patented technology into eCos and to allow the >> continued use of the technology within eCos should it later be patented >> by the author. >> > > I would think if code was legitimately contributed to eCos, then it > couldn't later be patented anyway. > No. If you wrote the code, you can patent it whenever you want (subject to patent requirements etc. like no prior art) . Some patents also take forever to be granted, so you may file for a patent, contribute your code and then end up with a patent on something that is in the main tree. Hence why an FSF assignment specifically covers use of patents. There are some companies in the open source area, like Red Hat, that in fact apply for patents on open source code they contribute specifically to protect the code to allow it to be used freely by the community. The FSF assignment just ensures that nobody can do the dirty "Hey, that is my code, I have a patent, please pay me" - simple copyright assignment does not protect you against that. -- 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] 17+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-10-08 13:20 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 17+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2009-10-06 9:17 [ECOS] APB - Copyright assignment Øyvind Harboe 2009-10-06 13:34 ` Alex Schuilenburg 2009-10-06 14:31 ` Øyvind Harboe 2009-10-06 15:06 ` Alex Schuilenburg 2009-10-06 15:19 ` Øyvind Harboe 2009-10-06 16:04 ` Alex Schuilenburg 2009-10-06 14:37 ` Edgar Grimberg 2009-10-06 15:12 ` Alex Schuilenburg 2009-10-06 15:26 ` Øyvind Harboe 2009-10-07 0:29 ` Jonathan Larmour 2009-10-07 5:31 ` Øyvind Harboe 2009-10-07 14:34 ` [ECOS] " Grant Edwards 2009-10-07 16:31 ` Paul D. DeRocco 2009-10-07 18:30 ` Grant Edwards 2009-10-07 23:10 ` [ECOS] " Alex Schuilenburg 2009-10-08 0:31 ` Paul D. DeRocco 2009-10-08 13:20 ` Alex Schuilenburg
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).