From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26377 invoked by alias); 25 Mar 2003 16:37:03 -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 26238 invoked from network); 25 Mar 2003 16:36:57 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: John Dallaway Organization: eCosCentric Limited To: ecos-maintainers@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Copyright resolution Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:37:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.4.3 References: <3E7A9442.8000607@eCosCentric.com> In-Reply-To: <3E7A9442.8000607@eCosCentric.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: <200303251639.00226.jld@ecoscentric.com> X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00057.txt.bz2 Jonathan Larmour wrote: > 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.; > or > b) Drop the copyright assignment requirement for patches entirely. I don't see option (a) as realistic unless someone is prepared to pay the legal fees or we can find sponsorship. These fees are likely to be considerable given the unusual nature of the proposed foundation. I think option (b) is the most realistic way forward and agree with Jifl that this should definitely be accompanied by a company disclaimer process. In fact, we should maintain a database detailing all code contributions, company names, contact details, etc. John Dallaway