[ECOS] APB - Copyright assignment

[ECOS] APB - Copyright assignment

[Øyvind Harboe]

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

Re: [ECOS] APB - Copyright assignment

[Alex Schuilenburg]

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.

-- 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

Re: [ECOS] APB - Copyright assignment

[Øyvind Harboe]

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

Re: [ECOS] APB - Copyright assignment

[Edgar Grimberg]

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

Re: [ECOS] APB - Copyright assignment

[Alex Schuilenburg]

Øyvind 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

Re: [ECOS] APB - Copyright assignment

[Alex Schuilenburg]

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

Re: [ECOS] APB - Copyright assignment

[Øyvind Harboe]

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

Re: [ECOS] APB - Copyright assignment

[Øyvind Harboe]

> 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

Re: [ECOS] APB - Copyright assignment

[Alex Schuilenburg]

Øyvind 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

Re: [ECOS] APB - Copyright assignment

[Jonathan Larmour]

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).

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

Re: [ECOS] APB - Copyright assignment

[Øyvind Harboe]

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

[ECOS] Re: APB - Copyright assignment

[Grant Edwards]

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

RE: [ECOS] Re: APB - Copyright assignment

[Paul D. DeRocco]

> 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

[ECOS] Re: APB - Copyright assignment

[Grant Edwards]

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

Re: [ECOS] APB - Copyright assignment

[Alex Schuilenburg]

Øyvind 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

RE: [ECOS] APB - Copyright assignment

[Paul D. DeRocco]

> 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

Re: [ECOS] APB - Copyright assignment

[Alex Schuilenburg]

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