From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29121 invoked by alias); 4 Apr 2008 09:36:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 29106 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Apr 2008 09:36:15 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mgcn1.bloomberg.com (HELO mgcn1.bloomberg.com) (199.172.169.46) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Apr 2008 09:35:55 +0000 Received: from ny2570.bloomberg.com ([172.20.72.138]) by mgcn1.bloomberg.com with ESMTP; 04 Apr 2008 05:35:53 -0400 Received: from ny2528.corp.bloomberg.com (ny2528.corp.bloomberg.com [172.20.85.39]) by ny2570.bloomberg.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m349ZlsP004037; Fri, 4 Apr 2008 05:35:48 -0400 Received: from ny2545.corp.bloomberg.com ([172.20.73.98]) by ny2528.corp.bloomberg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 4 Apr 2008 05:35:48 -0400 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 10:00:00 -0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <47F5F130.2030800@gaisler.com> 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> <47F5F130.2030800@gaisler.com> From: "Chris Zimman" To: "Jiri Gaisler" , "Markus Schaber" Cc: 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/msg00066.txt.bz2 > Does this mean that if we contribute some files to eCos under > this license and they end up in eCos Pro, any modifications to > them made by eCosCentric would have to be published and could be > merged back to the open version of eCos. The last sentence seems > to indicate this, I just want be sure. If eCosCentric owns the copyright, they can change the license at any time.= =20=20 If you make a contribution under GPL, I believe they still require an assignment=20 statement if it's not a standalone piece of code (please correct me if I'm wrong here). > 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? OK, this is an interesting issue, which I've thought about a lot recently. So in the case of the tree that I have with ARM EABI support, it was derived from an eCosPro tree. I was considering putting parts of that code back into anon CVS, but I thought about it for a while,=20 and this is what I arrived at: In my opinion, eCosCentric as an entity, is doing the most to help and support eCos at the moment. They rely on people paying them for eCosPro in order to put food on the table. I am in the situation where I can do enhancements to eCos as part of my job, but it's not my primary job, and I get paid=20 either way. I want to help the community at large, but not at the expense = of hurting eCosCentric,=20 as I think that will hurt everyone in the long run. Without eCosCentric, there'd be nowhere to go for eCos support when you really need it. Sure, something else could spring up in their place,=20 but it would face all of the same issues. In an ideal world, the publicly available eCos could have all the features = of eCosPro and people=20 would still pay eCosCentric for support. Unfortunately though, things don't really seem to go that way. If people can get something entirely for free (as in beer), that's usually the end of it. As I understand it, they have the intention of releasing the code back into anon CVS at some point,=20 but they need to recoup their development costs on it first. It's not an ideal situation from all=20 perspectives, but it's reality. What I've elected to do instead is to honor a sort of gentlemen's agreement, where I'm not releasing=20 the GPL'd bits from eCosPro back into the tree. When eCosCentric feels the time is right, I'll let=20 them do it. This includes the enhancements that I've made. I've contribut= ed them back to eCosCentric=20 if they wish to include them. I don't think their fees are in any way egregious compared to what you'd=20 pay for a commercial RTOS ($40K+ USD for a base license), so I'm happy to continue to support them. Anyhow, that's my $.02 on the issue. --Chris -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss