* Re: Update jffs2 from public MTD [not found] <20040812213722.GV9839@lunn.ch> @ 2004-08-13 11:06 ` Jonathan Larmour 2004-08-13 12:30 ` Jonathan Larmour 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Jonathan Larmour @ 2004-08-13 11:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andrew Lunn; +Cc: eCos Maintainers, David Woodhouse Andrew Lunn wrote: > Index: fs/jffs2/current/src/compr.c > =================================================================== > RCS file: /cvs/ecos/ecos/packages/fs/jffs2/current/src/compr.c,v > retrieving revision 1.6 > diff -u -r1.6 compr.c > --- fs/jffs2/current/src/compr.c 1 Apr 2004 03:17:57 -0000 1.6 > +++ fs/jffs2/current/src/compr.c 12 Aug 2004 21:29:23 -0000 > @@ -2,32 +2,39 @@ > * JFFS2 -- Journalling Flash File System, Version 2. > * > * Copyright (C) 2001-2003 Red Hat, Inc. > - * > * Created by Arjan van de Ven <arjanv@redhat.com> > * > + * Copyright (C) 2004 Ferenc Havasi <havasi@inf.u-szeged.hu>, > + * University of Szeged, Hungary > + * Erk, this is slightly unexpected. IIRC JFFS2 isn't one of the things on the list to be assigned by RH (goodness knows when at the current rate) to the FSF (correct me if I'm misremembering!). But even so, it's an.... interesting development if copyright is to be shared liberally in future and RH isn't going to be getting assignments for JFFS2 patches. David, is this what JFFS2's policy for contributions now is? Or is this just something in progress? For example if eCos ever changes licence in the future, which is always a possibility (I'm always fearful someone will find a workaround for the eCos exception and we'll need to tighten the wording), then JFFS2 wouldn't be able to change. I'm not sure how much (if anything) of a problem this is, but we'd better make sure we all know what the future status is going to be. If we decide it is a problem, we could reverse this change and not import any further JFFS2 code, but that does seem overkill. Or more likely just put up with it, and deal with the consequences down the road if we have to change licence and find that we can only use JFFS2 under the full GPL. Jifl -- eCosCentric http://www.eCosCentric.com/ The eCos and RedBoot experts --["No sense being pessimistic, it wouldn't work anyway"]-- Opinions==mine ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Update jffs2 from public MTD 2004-08-13 11:06 ` Update jffs2 from public MTD Jonathan Larmour @ 2004-08-13 12:30 ` Jonathan Larmour 2004-08-18 9:51 ` David Woodhouse 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Jonathan Larmour @ 2004-08-13 12:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David Woodhouse; +Cc: Andrew Lunn, eCos Maintainers Jonathan Larmour wrote: > Andrew Lunn wrote: > >> Index: fs/jffs2/current/src/compr.c >> =================================================================== >> RCS file: /cvs/ecos/ecos/packages/fs/jffs2/current/src/compr.c,v >> retrieving revision 1.6 >> diff -u -r1.6 compr.c >> --- fs/jffs2/current/src/compr.c 1 Apr 2004 03:17:57 -0000 1.6 >> +++ fs/jffs2/current/src/compr.c 12 Aug 2004 21:29:23 -0000 >> @@ -2,32 +2,39 @@ >> * JFFS2 -- Journalling Flash File System, Version 2. >> * >> * Copyright (C) 2001-2003 Red Hat, Inc. >> - * >> * Created by Arjan van de Ven <arjanv@redhat.com> >> * >> + * Copyright (C) 2004 Ferenc Havasi <havasi@inf.u-szeged.hu>, >> + * University of Szeged, Hungary >> + * > > > Erk, this is slightly unexpected. IIRC JFFS2 isn't one of the things on > the list to be assigned by RH (goodness knows when at the current rate) > to the FSF (correct me if I'm misremembering!). But even so, it's an.... > interesting development if copyright is to be shared liberally in future > and RH isn't going to be getting assignments for JFFS2 patches. > > David, is this what JFFS2's policy for contributions now is? Or is this > just something in progress? Bart's just been telling me that he remembers David saying in the pub about future JFFS2 contribs not being assigned. Sorry if I've forgotten that. So is that still the case? Jifl -- eCosCentric http://www.eCosCentric.com/ The eCos and RedBoot experts --["No sense being pessimistic, it wouldn't work anyway"]-- Opinions==mine ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Update jffs2 from public MTD 2004-08-13 12:30 ` Jonathan Larmour @ 2004-08-18 9:51 ` David Woodhouse 2004-08-18 10:17 ` Andrew Lunn 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: David Woodhouse @ 2004-08-18 9:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jonathan Larmour; +Cc: Andrew Lunn, eCos Maintainers On Fri, 2004-08-13 at 13:30 +0100, Jonathan Larmour wrote: > Bart's just been telling me that he remembers David saying in the pub about > future JFFS2 contribs not being assigned. Sorry if I've forgotten that. So > is that still the case? Please don't use my @redhat.com address. Use the address which is run competently. I've only just received this mail -- in fact I've only just received all mail sent to dwmw2@redhat.com in the last couple of weeks. You are correct -- since Red Hat IS pulled the plug on my servers without giving me even enough time to wind down the DNS expiry and move them to a new home, I stopped requiring copyright assignment. They no longer own CVS JFFS2. -- dwmw2 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Update jffs2 from public MTD 2004-08-18 9:51 ` David Woodhouse @ 2004-08-18 10:17 ` Andrew Lunn 2004-08-18 10:28 ` David Woodhouse 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Andrew Lunn @ 2004-08-18 10:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David Woodhouse; +Cc: Jonathan Larmour, Andrew Lunn, eCos Maintainers On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 10:51:42AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Fri, 2004-08-13 at 13:30 +0100, Jonathan Larmour wrote: > > Bart's just been telling me that he remembers David saying in the pub about > > future JFFS2 contribs not being assigned. Sorry if I've forgotten that. So > > is that still the case? [..] > You are correct -- since Red Hat IS pulled the plug on my servers > without giving me even enough time to wind down the DNS expiry and move > them to a new home, I stopped requiring copyright assignment. They no > longer own CVS JFFS2. Hi David One thing to consider is maybe trying to get RedHat to contribute the parts it owns to FSF when it transfers eCos. Would you be interested in that? Would you be willing to require FSF copyright assingments for jffs2? Its something that must be acted on quickly if you think this is a good idea. We would have to get assignments for the recent changes which are not owned by RedHat. Andrew ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Update jffs2 from public MTD 2004-08-18 10:17 ` Andrew Lunn @ 2004-08-18 10:28 ` David Woodhouse 2004-08-18 12:44 ` Jonathan Larmour 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: David Woodhouse @ 2004-08-18 10:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andrew Lunn; +Cc: Jonathan Larmour, Andrew Lunn, eCos Maintainers On Wed, 2004-08-18 at 12:17 +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote: > One thing to consider is maybe trying to get RedHat to contribute the > parts it owns to FSF when it transfers eCos. Would you be interested > in that? Would you be willing to require FSF copyright assingments for > jffs2? That works for me. In fact when I told Red Hat I was no longer going to collect copyright assignments for them for JFFS2, I had already suggested they might as well assign it to the FSF too, and I think they agreed. I'm not averse to collecting assignments to the FSF. -- dwmw2 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Update jffs2 from public MTD 2004-08-18 10:28 ` David Woodhouse @ 2004-08-18 12:44 ` Jonathan Larmour 0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Jonathan Larmour @ 2004-08-18 12:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David Woodhouse; +Cc: Andrew Lunn, Andrew Lunn, eCos Maintainers David Woodhouse wrote: > On Wed, 2004-08-18 at 12:17 +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote: > >>One thing to consider is maybe trying to get RedHat to contribute the >>parts it owns to FSF when it transfers eCos. Would you be interested >>in that? Would you be willing to require FSF copyright assingments for >>jffs2? > > > That works for me. In fact when I told Red Hat I was no longer going to > collect copyright assignments for them for JFFS2, I had already > suggested they might as well assign it to the FSF too, and I think they > agreed. > > I'm not averse to collecting assignments to the FSF. That's great. Now the only issue is getting Webbink to make the assignment. Until then you can't get the assignment from Ferenc Havasi (unless you and he don't mind him assigning to eCosCentric first, and we'll assign to the FSF later as with all the other eCos contribs currently). The reason is that the FSF won't accept any other assignments until it's officially adopted, which won't happen till the RH copyright is assigned. I suppose it might be an opportunity for you to fire an e-mail off to Webbink reminding/confirming that JFFS2 can be included and asking about the status, because we've heard "very soon now" from Webbink for months! It's now 8 months since the original announcement. Jifl -- eCosCentric http://www.eCosCentric.com/ The eCos and RedBoot experts --["No sense being pessimistic, it wouldn't work anyway"]-- Opinions==mine ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-08-18 12:44 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- [not found] <20040812213722.GV9839@lunn.ch> 2004-08-13 11:06 ` Update jffs2 from public MTD Jonathan Larmour 2004-08-13 12:30 ` Jonathan Larmour 2004-08-18 9:51 ` David Woodhouse 2004-08-18 10:17 ` Andrew Lunn 2004-08-18 10:28 ` David Woodhouse 2004-08-18 12:44 ` Jonathan Larmour
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).