From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21427 invoked by alias); 22 Dec 2002 23:21:49 -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 21419 invoked from network); 22 Dec 2002 23:21:47 -0000 To: fche@redhat.com Cc: ecos-maintainers@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <20021220172005.D19606@redhat.com> (fche@redhat.com) Subject: Re: Future code ownership From: Bart Veer References: <20021219145229.A15709@redhat.com> <20021219222912.84A556165C@delenn.bartv.net> <20021220172005.D19606@redhat.com> Message-Id: <20021222215237.108FC6165C@delenn.bartv.net> Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 15:21:00 -0000 X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00026.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Frank" == Frank Ch Eigler writes: Frank> On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 10:29:12PM +0000, Bart Veer wrote: >> [...] >> Ideally Red Hat would assign to SPI as well, simplifying the whole >> situation. But if they do not, copyright enforcement is still an awful >> lot simpler when there only two copyright holders than when there are >> hundreds. [...] Frank> I don't know for sure, but this belief sounds like an old Frank> wives' tale. Why is there an impression that an Frank> infringement suit can only proceed if *all* (vs. any) of Frank> the infringement victims want it to go ahead? I didn't intend to give any such impression. As far as I am aware any copyright holder can launch an infringement suit, it does not require agreement by all of them. Of course if a copyright holder has only contributed a few lines then a court might decide that the action was frivolous. An open source organization like SPI will be taken seriously. Also, from the perspective of a potential user who is worried about open source, having lots of copyright holders is a bad thing because any of them might sue for some perceived slight. If instead copyright is only held by one or two reputable organizations then such risks are greatly reduced. It does require agreement by all copyright holders to change the license, or to grant license exemptions. >> The assignment process for a corporate employee also involves a >> disclaimer form that has to be signed by an officer of the >> company, as per the FSF. [...] there would be clear >> documentation showing that the maintainers had acted in good >> faith and had taken all reasonable precautions. [...] Frank> Yes, I'm aware of that. My point was that you could accept Frank> a lower standard of paperwork (basically the submitter's Frank> affirmation, perhaps in the form of a proposed copyright Frank> notice for the new code). I have heard of no contrasting Frank> outcome for infringement disputes involving projects that Frank> use looser vs. tighter submission paperwork rules. In other Frank> words, such "all reasonable precautions", while likely Frank> sufficient, may not be necessary to protect yourselves. Not sure about that - if we are going to bother with copyright assignments at all then we might as well do it properly. The FSF has defined certain procedures which it considers necessary, and it has some very good legal advisors. If a potential eCos user has questions about the legal status of contributions, pointing at the FSF precedent makes things a lot simpler. Bart