From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6968 invoked by alias); 21 Mar 2003 18:56:50 -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 6956 invoked from network); 21 Mar 2003 18:56:46 -0000 Subject: Re: Copyright resolution From: Gary Thomas To: Jonathan Larmour Cc: eCos Maintainers In-Reply-To: <3E7A9442.8000607@eCosCentric.com> References: <3E7A9442.8000607@eCosCentric.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.3 (1.0.3-4) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 18:56:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1048273005.4073.1061.camel@hermes.chez-thomas.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00050.txt.bz2 On Thu, 2003-03-20 at 21:25, Jonathan Larmour wrote: > The time has come to bring this to a conclusion. The beta is now out, and > we want this to be resolved for 2.0 final. > > I gave Red Hat repeated reminders and finally a deadline of last week to > give a response to the mail I had sent (which you've all seen). But there > was no answer. > > At FOSDEM I talked to Martin Michlmayer about SPI and copyright > assignments and stuff, and from that I found out that despite my very > explicit statements in almost all my mails, it is almost certain they > unfortunately didn't quite understand our proposal with licensing > opt-outs. Martin's view from knowing the individuals on the SPI board (he > doesn't speak for SPI so this *isn't* a definitive SPI response though) is > that many of them would be deeply against such license opt-outs. > > Add to that that SPI are only now even _considering_ how to deal with > copyright assignments (although admittedly we were only proposing before > them delegating the paperwork to us), and that their approach in general, > while well-intentioned, is unfortunately.... er... amateurish, I don't > believe any chance of license deals between Red Hat and SPI is plausible. > > So as I see it, and from what y'all have already indicated preferences > for, there are essentially two conclusions: > > a) Create our own "eCos Foundation" whether not-for-profit or otherwise, > and possibly then try to do a deal with Red Hat.; I'm in favor of this, but it must be seen as vendor neutral, i.e. not favoring any commercial participant (eCosCentric or MLB or Mind or ...) > or > b) Drop the copyright assignment requirement for patches entirely. > I see this as a last resort because it basically can turn things into a free-for-all. > I would like to hear from every maintainer in this thread. Unless we get > complete consensus, I would suggest thrashing things out here a little, > and then setting up a phone conference to reach the conclusion. > > I won't say what my favoured personal preference is until tomorrow as I > want to prevent this post appearing biased :-P. > By "tomorrow", I assume that you mean Friday, March 21? I'm ready to discuss this at length whenever y'all are. I note that it's been 15 hours since Jonathan sent this, and AFAICT this is the only response so far. > What I would say is that if Red Hat presented the option of assigning all > their copyright to a _single_ not-for-profit entity on a plate, I'd go for > that. But that's safe to say since it isn't an option :-) :-(. Yup, pretty safe. -- ------------------------------------------------------------ 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 ------------------------------------------------------------