RE: [ECOS] EB40A port is done!

RE: [ECOS] EB40A port is done!

[Doug Fraser]

Even if you contribute directly to www.gnu.org you need
to perform a copywrite assignment and possibly provide
a disclaimer signed by your employer.

http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain_7.html#SEC7

So, no, simply having GPL'ed the code does not absolve the
maintainer from this responsibility. Having non-assigned
copywrites poisons GPL'ed code.

Doug Fraser

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Dattalo [mailto:scott@dattalo.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 12:45 PM
> Cc: ecos-discuss (E-Mail)
> Subject: RE: [ECOS] EB40A port is done!
> 
> 
> On 16 Jul 2002, Gary Thomas wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 2002-07-16 at 03:30, Koeller, T. wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > > 
> > 
> > BTW, have you filed the copyright release/assignment forms for your
> > contributions?  At the moment, we can't incorporate anything into
> > the public repository without them.  For more details see:
> >     http://sources.redhat.com/fom/ecos?file=47
> > and for the actual forms:
> >     http://sources.redhat.com/ecos/assign.html
> > 
> > note: we hope to make some changes in this area to simplify things,
> > but that is still in the future.
> 
> Gary,
> 
> Not to complain, but now that eCos is GPL'd doesn't this 
> obviate the need 
> for any kind of adhoc copyright re-assignment?
> 
> Scott
> 
> 
> -- 
> Before posting, please read the FAQ: 
> http://sources.redhat.com/fom/ecos
> and search the list archive: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/ecos-discuss
> 

-- 
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://sources.redhat.com/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/ecos-discuss

Re: [ECOS] EB40A port is done!

[David N. Welton]

Doug Fraser <dfraser@photuris.com> writes:

> Even if you contribute directly to www.gnu.org you need to perform a
> copywrite assignment and possibly provide a disclaimer signed by
> your employer.

> http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain_7.html#SEC7

> So, no, simply having GPL'ed the code does not absolve the
> maintainer from this responsibility. Having non-assigned copywrites
> poisons GPL'ed code.

Well, things like Linux are probably defensible, despite having lots
of 'poisoned' code.  The bigger problem, maybe, for an organization
like GNU, is the possibility of changing the copyright in the future.

-- 
David N. Welton
   Consulting: http://www.dedasys.com/
     Personal: http://www.dedasys.com/davidw/
Free Software: http://www.dedasys.com/freesoftware/
   Apache Tcl: http://tcl.apache.org/

-- 
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://sources.redhat.com/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/ecos-discuss

Re: [ECOS] EB40A port is done!

[Peter Vandenabeele]

On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 05:50:14PM -0700, David N. Welton wrote:
> Doug Fraser <dfraser@photuris.com> writes:
> 
> > Even if you contribute directly to www.gnu.org you need to perform a
> > copywrite assignment and possibly provide a disclaimer signed by
> > your employer.
> 
> > http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain_7.html#SEC7
> 
> > So, no, simply having GPL'ed the code does not absolve the
> > maintainer from this responsibility. Having non-assigned copywrites
> > poisons GPL'ed code.
> 
> Well, things like Linux are probably defensible, despite having lots
> of 'poisoned' code.  The bigger problem, maybe, for an organization
> like GNU, is the possibility of changing the copyright in the future.

David,
Doug,

With all respect, I believe this to be incorrect.  The fundamental 
"fairness" of GPL consists of the fact that anyone who contributes source 
code to a GPL project, knows exactly what the rules are for that project 
and trusts the symmetry: "If I contribute my source now, others will have 
to contribute it too, later, when they start distributing an executable."

Giving the opportunity to a specific organization to bend the rules at
a later time (which is of the reasons why a number of organizations that 
manage Open Source projects request Copyright Assignment to them), moves 
that trust from trust in a fixed inalienable license on paper, to trust 
in the future behavior (let alone existence) of that organization.

I believe this is the reason why GPL works: the license (that is 
comprehensible for anyone that takes the time to study it) is implicit
in the project and is the contract that enforces the fairness and 
symmetry, instead of an organization that could always change its mind.
(Obviusly, it becomes painfull when Software Patents are used as
a "Deus ex machina" to overrule that fairness and still limit the
free use of a piece of GPL code that was submitted earlier in good
trust by a number of developers.)

Other models with mixed licenses are possible. Typically this is a 
combination of a dual license (TrollTech) or quad license (Mozilla) 
or other special licenses (bitkeeper) with Copyright Assignment to a 
commercial entity. There you want to have a central company pushing a 
project harder (with the cash it gets from selling commercial (non GPL) 
licenses and/or from selling support) than would be the case it it were 
a straight GPL project. May I assume Cygnus/Redhat was the organisation 
pushing eCos in this manner ?

I have the impression this concept (of a mixed license and push by
a central commercial entity) works in certain cases and is defendable 
if implemented in a "fair" manner, with a correct balance between the 
interests of the Free Software community and of the commercial entity.

One of the elements of such balance seems to me that contributors that
are not associated with the central, maintaining organization need to
have the right to set up at any time a separate CVS server where they 
can submit patches and build a forked version, in case they do not agree 
with the policy set forward by the central maintaining organization 
(especially if that organization would request Copyright Assignment as 
a pre-condition for allowing the patch in the central CVS server). 

Sincerely,

Peter Vandenabeele
peter@mind.be

-- 
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://sources.redhat.com/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/ecos-discuss

Re: [ECOS] EB40A port is done!

[Iztok Zupet]

On Wednesday 17 July 2002 10:18, Peter Vandenabeele wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 05:50:14PM -0700, David N. Welton wrote:
> > Doug Fraser <dfraser@photuris.com> writes:
> > > Even if you contribute directly to www.gnu.org you need to perform a
> > > copywrite assignment and possibly provide a disclaimer signed by
> > > your employer.
> > >
> > > http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain_7.html#SEC7
> > >
> > > So, no, simply having GPL'ed the code does not absolve the
> > > maintainer from this responsibility. Having non-assigned copywrites
> > > poisons GPL'ed code.
> >
> > Well, things like Linux are probably defensible, despite having lots
> > of 'poisoned' code.  The bigger problem, maybe, for an organization
> > like GNU, is the possibility of changing the copyright in the future.
>
> David,
> Doug,
>
> With all respect, I believe this to be incorrect.  The fundamental
> "fairness" of GPL consists of the fact that anyone who contributes source
> code to a GPL project, knows exactly what the rules are for that project
> and trusts the symmetry: "If I contribute my source now, others will have
> to contribute it too, later, when they start distributing an executable."
>
> Giving the opportunity to a specific organization to bend the rules at
> a later time (which is of the reasons why a number of organizations that
> manage Open Source projects request Copyright Assignment to them), moves
> that trust from trust in a fixed inalienable license on paper, to trust
> in the future behavior (let alone existence) of that organization.
>
> I believe this is the reason why GPL works: the license (that is
> comprehensible for anyone that takes the time to study it) is implicit
> in the project and is the contract that enforces the fairness and
> symmetry, instead of an organization that could always change its mind.
> (Obviusly, it becomes painfull when Software Patents are used as
> a "Deus ex machina" to overrule that fairness and still limit the
> free use of a piece of GPL code that was submitted earlier in good
> trust by a number of developers.)
>
> Other models with mixed licenses are possible. Typically this is a
> combination of a dual license (TrollTech) or quad license (Mozilla)
> or other special licenses (bitkeeper) with Copyright Assignment to a
> commercial entity. There you want to have a central company pushing a
> project harder (with the cash it gets from selling commercial (non GPL)
> licenses and/or from selling support) than would be the case it it were
> a straight GPL project. May I assume Cygnus/Redhat was the organisation
> pushing eCos in this manner ?
>
> I have the impression this concept (of a mixed license and push by
> a central commercial entity) works in certain cases and is defendable
> if implemented in a "fair" manner, with a correct balance between the
> interests of the Free Software community and of the commercial entity.
>
> One of the elements of such balance seems to me that contributors that
> are not associated with the central, maintaining organization need to
> have the right to set up at any time a separate CVS server where they
> can submit patches and build a forked version, in case they do not agree
> with the policy set forward by the central maintaining organization
> (especially if that organization would request Copyright Assignment as
> a pre-condition for allowing the patch in the central CVS server).
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Peter Vandenabeele
> peter@mind.be

According to my understanding of GPL-ed eCos things look that way:

  If One modifies or adds something to eCos, one must publish the patch or 
addon under the same GPL licence at least on the ecos-patch mailing list if 
not elswhere.

 But if One wants his changes or addons incorporated in the eCos public CVS 
tree, One should and must send the Copyright Assigment.

Regards
iz  

-- 
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://sources.redhat.com/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/ecos-discuss

[ECOS] GPL - was: Re: [ECOS] EB40A port is done!

[David N. Welton]

Peter Vandenabeele <peter@mind.be> writes:

> On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 05:50:14PM -0700, David N. Welton wrote:
> > Doug Fraser <dfraser@photuris.com> writes:

> > > Even if you contribute directly to www.gnu.org you need to
> > > perform a copywrite assignment and possibly provide a disclaimer
> > > signed by your employer.

> > > http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain_7.html#SEC7

> > > So, no, simply having GPL'ed the code does not absolve the
> > > maintainer from this responsibility. Having non-assigned
> > > copywrites poisons GPL'ed code.

> > Well, things like Linux are probably defensible, despite having
> > lots of 'poisoned' code.  The bigger problem, maybe, for an
> > organization like GNU, is the possibility of changing the
> > copyright in the future.

> With all respect, I believe this to be incorrect.

What, exactly, is incorrect with what I wrote?

Other than that, I agree with everything you say.

> I have the impression this concept (of a mixed license and push by a
> central commercial entity) works in certain cases and is defendable
> if implemented in a "fair" manner, with a correct balance between
> the interests of the Free Software community and of the commercial
> entity.

Right, I think that no one begrudges someone making money off the code
if they've put a lot of work into it, especially because we can still
use it under an open source license.  Knowing who that someone is,
though, would be nice.  Redhat?  Some new entity?

> One of the elements of such balance seems to me that contributors
> that are not associated with the central, maintaining organization
> need to have the right to set up at any time a separate CVS server
> where they can submit patches and build a forked version, in case
> they do not agree with the policy set forward by the central
> maintaining organization (especially if that organization would
> request Copyright Assignment as a pre-condition for allowing the
> patch in the central CVS server).

I think that you can always do that with the code you have now.  It's
under the GPL.  What you don't have is the guarantee that the code
will always be GPL in the future.

-- 
David N. Welton
   Consulting: http://www.dedasys.com/
     Personal: http://www.dedasys.com/davidw/
Free Software: http://www.dedasys.com/freesoftware/
   Apache Tcl: http://tcl.apache.org/

-- 
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://sources.redhat.com/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/ecos-discuss

Re: [ECOS] GPL - was: Re: [ECOS] EB40A port is done!

[Peter Vandenabeele]

On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 01:10:00PM -0700, David N. Welton wrote:
> Peter Vandenabeele <peter@mind.be> writes:
> 
> > On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 05:50:14PM -0700, David N. Welton wrote:
> > > Doug Fraser <dfraser@photuris.com> writes:
> 
> > > > Even if you contribute directly to www.gnu.org you need to
> > > > perform a copywrite assignment and possibly provide a disclaimer
> > > > signed by your employer.
> 
> > > > http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain_7.html#SEC7
> 
> > > > So, no, simply having GPL'ed the code does not absolve the
> > > > maintainer from this responsibility. Having non-assigned
> > > > copywrites poisons GPL'ed code.
> 
> > > Well, things like Linux are probably defensible, despite having
> > > lots of 'poisoned' code.  The bigger problem, maybe, for an
> > > organization like GNU, is the possibility of changing the
> > > copyright in the future.
> 
> > With all respect, I believe this to be incorrect.
> 
> What, exactly, is incorrect with what I wrote?

In the FSF "Copyright Papers" guideline, the statement of needing a 
Copyright Assignment to FSF is a request (not a hard condition) for 
packages that are maintained and defended by the FSF. I don't think 
it is a requirement for the GPL system at large to work. Any 
Copyright holder could at some time decide to alone, or together 
with others, defend his rights in court. If required, at that time,
they could still transfer their rights to a central ad-hoc group for 
that purpose, but with a clear limited goal at that time.

Having non-assigned Code does not poison GPL code in the sense that
it does not stand in the way of letting use the code by anyone, or 
defending the rights of the original authors of the code.

[...]

> > One of the elements of such balance seems to me that contributors
> > that are not associated with the central, maintaining organization
> > need to have the right to set up at any time a separate CVS server
> > where they can submit patches and build a forked version, in case
> > they do not agree with the policy set forward by the central
> > maintaining organization (especially if that organization would
> > request Copyright Assignment as a pre-condition for allowing the
> > patch in the central CVS server).
> 
> I think that you can always do that with the code you have now.  It's
> under the GPL.  What you don't have is the guarantee that the code
> will always be GPL in the future.

On one hand, from the current GPL version, you can always derive future
GPL versions and you have unlimited rights to fork. Alternatively, an 
entity that holds Copyright to a large part of the code could at any time 
start developing a forked version with a different (typical proprietary)
license (e.g. Kaffe / KaffePro). That is where (if well done) there 
could be an efficient collaboration between business and Free Software 
development. But the conditions of such a way of working should be clear 
upfront and balanced. I believe that a blanket, unconditional Copyright 
Assignment to an organisation is not optimally balanced, since it does 
not cover enough the interests of the Free Software developers.

Peter

> -- 
> David N. Welton
>    Consulting: http://www.dedasys.com/
>      Personal: http://www.dedasys.com/davidw/
> Free Software: http://www.dedasys.com/freesoftware/
>    Apache Tcl: http://tcl.apache.org/
> 
> -- 
> Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://sources.redhat.com/fom/ecos
> and search the list archive: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/ecos-discuss
> 

-- 
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://sources.redhat.com/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/ecos-discuss