From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26434 invoked by alias); 17 Dec 2002 13:47:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ecos-maintainers-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-maintainers-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 26298 invoked from network); 17 Dec 2002 13:47:39 -0000 Subject: Re: Future code ownership From: Gary Thomas To: Andrew Lunn Cc: Jonathan Larmour , eCos Maintainers In-Reply-To: <20021217092616.GN350@biferten.ma.tech.ascom.ch> References: <3DFDF6B7.8090008@jifvik.org> <20021217092616.GN350@biferten.ma.tech.ascom.ch> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.3 (1.0.3-4) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 05:47:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1040132847.22212.1460.camel@hermes.chez-thomas.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00005.txt.bz2 On Tue, 2002-12-17 at 02:26, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > 6) Software in the Public Interest, Inc. is a US not-for-profit > > organisation. Its goals are to advance open > > source. They are well known already as the copyright holders of many well > > known projects like Debian Linux, GNOME, LSB as well as owners of the Open > > Source marque, and so on. They are trusted. We have already taken the > > step of asking them in principle if they could accept eCos as a project, > > even with our funky licensing proposal outlined above. And as you can see > > from > > > > this was accepted. > > > > Personally I favour this option. I think it is best for eCos as an Open > > Source project, and I would like to hope even Red Hat would be able to > > support it, as it would be in the long-term best interests of eCos. > > Besides if the licensing proposal does pay off, they would profit! > > Has the opinion of RH been sought on this? > > To me, this does seem like the best option. > Frankly, Red Hat's opinion should not matter. They're the ones that caused all this ruckus in the first place. As for me, I think this is the best solution. My main reason for putting my copyright in files I touch (which I believe matches those who followed me) was to preclude Red Hat from simply taking work that I and others had done and selling it to the highest bidder. [n.b. of course the can still try to do this, but I'm sure that some lawyer somewhere will stop them] I would have no problem assigning any new work I contribute to a third party since this would have the same effect. As Andrew has asked, how would we actually make such a change? We can't change Red Hat's copyright notices without their consent. Or can we get away with just assigning any new work to the SPI? -- ------------------------------------------------------------ Gary Thomas | MLB Associates | Consulting for the +1 (970) 229-1963 | Embedded world http://www.mlbassoc.com/ | email: | gpg: http://www.chez-thomas.org/gary/gpg_key.asc ------------------------------------------------------------