FWD: Re: [ECOS] Status of eCos copyright assignments to the FSF?

FWD: Re: [ECOS] Status of eCos copyright assignments to the FSF?

[Andrew Lunn]

> ----- Forwarded message from Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch> -----
> 
> Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 19:59:16 +0100
> To: Wouter Cloetens <wouter@mind.be>
> Cc: eCos Discuss <ecos-discuss@ecos.sourceware.org>
> From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
> Subject: Re: [ECOS] Status of eCos copyright assignments to the FSF?
> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham 
> 	version=3.0.1
> 
> On Tue, Dec 28, 2004 at 02:08:50PM +0100, Wouter Cloetens wrote:
> > More than a year has passed since this announcement:
> > http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-announce/2003/msg00008.html.
> > 
> > Is there any progress? We have a list of contributions we would like to
> > make, but assigning copyright to eCosCentric is a sensitive issue. While
> > we would prefer a model without copyright assignment (e.g. I just took
> > a look at my Apache Software Foundation Contributor Licence Agreement,
> > and this model seems preferable to me; legal validity and advantages of a
> > copyright assignment can be questioned), we would be more inclined to
> > 1. assign copyright to the FSF instead of eCosCentric, and
> > 2. explicitly limit the scope of the assignment to only that code that we
> > want to specifically contribute, rather than signing a blanket
> > assignment.
> 
> We are still waiting for RedHat to make good on their promise to
> assign there parts of eCos to the FSF. It is nearly a year since they
> made their press release about doing this.....

Hi Jifl

I think its about time we officialy told RedHat about our counter
press release we will make on 13th Jan 2005. We should give them a
fair chance to actually make the transfer. I expect they unofficially
know what is coming, i expect somebody in Redhat is reading
ecos-maintainers and has seen the discussion we had at the beginning
of the month. So two weeks notice does not seem too unreasonable.

        Andrew

Re: [ECOS] Status of eCos copyright assignments to the FSF?

[Alex Schuilenburg]

Andrew Lunn wrote:
[...]
>>We are still waiting for RedHat to make good on their promise to
>>assign there parts of eCos to the FSF. It is nearly a year since they
>>made their press release about doing this.....
> 
> 
> Hi Jifl
> 
> I think its about time we officialy told RedHat about our counter
> press release we will make on 13th Jan 2005. We should give them a
> fair chance to actually make the transfer. I expect they unofficially
> know what is coming, i expect somebody in Redhat is reading
> ecos-maintainers and has seen the discussion we had at the beginning
> of the month. So two weeks notice does not seem too unreasonable.
> 
>         Andrew

I honestly do not believe that threatening Red Hat with bad press will 
achieve anything other than annoy them and strongly urge the maintainers 
to reconsider this course of action. You do not know their reasons for 
the delay and Red Hat have flip-flopped and suffered far worse press 
than this. You need Red Hat on your side and this is not the way to go 
about it.

Since email contact with Red Hat legal has so far failed, and jifl has 
failed to get hold of them via telephone, both Paul and I are happy to 
engage Red Hat legal once again to pursue this matter with the 
maintainers blessing.

Failing that, I suggest that you rather draft an open letter (sent 
registered) to both Red Hat and the FSF and formally ask them about the 
status of Red Hat's transfer and to set a date so that the copyrights 
held privately by the maintainers and by eCosCentric can simultaneously 
be transferred with Red Hat's copyright to the FSF. Knowing Red Hat and 
the FSF, two months out is a more realistic date than two weeks (which 
can easily catch the relevant person on vacation).

-- Alex

Managing Director / CEO                              eCosCentric Limited
http://www.ecoscentric.com/                 The eCos and RedBoot experts

Re: [ECOS] Status of eCos copyright assignments to the FSF?

[Jonathan Larmour]

Alex Schuilenburg wrote:
> Andrew Lunn wrote:
>> I think its about time we officialy told RedHat about our counter
>> press release we will make on 13th Jan 2005. We should give them a
>> fair chance to actually make the transfer. I expect they unofficially
>> know what is coming, i expect somebody in Redhat is reading
>> ecos-maintainers and has seen the discussion we had at the beginning
>> of the month. So two weeks notice does not seem too unreasonable.

I will again send mail to Mark Webbink on this, setting this out more 
forcefully. If he replies soon enough, then that is at least a sign of 
good intent and we can potentially be more flexible even though the thing 
won't be done and dusted by then.

> I honestly do not believe that threatening Red Hat with bad press will 
> achieve anything other than annoy them and strongly urge the maintainers 
> to reconsider this course of action. You do not know their reasons for 
> the delay and Red Hat have flip-flopped and suffered far worse press 
> than this. You need Red Hat on your side and this is not the way to go 
> about it.
> 
> Since email contact with Red Hat legal has so far failed, and jifl has 
> failed to get hold of them via telephone,

It's true that I would at least like to make contact before Dropping The Bomb.

> both Paul and I are happy to 
> engage Red Hat legal once again to pursue this matter with the 
> maintainers blessing.

I would prefer not to do that - this should come from the maintainers.

> Failing that, I suggest that you rather draft an open letter (sent 
> registered) to both Red Hat and the FSF and formally ask them about the 
> status of Red Hat's transfer and to set a date so that the copyrights 
> held privately by the maintainers and by eCosCentric can simultaneously 
> be transferred with Red Hat's copyright to the FSF.

You may not be aware, but there is an outstanding issue with even the FSF 
assignment. One which we have an agreement in principle about, but not in 
practice.This is a publicised guarantee that the FSF understands the 
purpose of and reasoning behind the existing eCos license and will not 
seek to "restrict" it (e.g. by switching to full GPL) without consultation 
with the eCos maintainers.

> Knowing Red Hat and 
> the FSF, two months out is a more realistic date than two weeks (which 
> can easily catch the relevant person on vacation).

They've had a year already!

Jifl
-- 
--[ "You can complain because roses have thorns, or you ]--
--[  can rejoice because thorns have roses." -Lincoln   ]-- Opinions==mine

Re: [ECOS] Status of eCos copyright assignments to the FSF?

[Alex Schuilenburg]

Jonathan Larmour wrote:
> Alex Schuilenburg wrote:
> 
>> Andrew Lunn wrote:
>>
>>> I think its about time we officialy told RedHat about our counter
>>> press release we will make on 13th Jan 2005. We should give them a
>>> fair chance to actually make the transfer. I expect they unofficially
>>> know what is coming, i expect somebody in Redhat is reading
>>> ecos-maintainers and has seen the discussion we had at the beginning
>>> of the month. So two weeks notice does not seem too unreasonable.
> 
> 
> I will again send mail to Mark Webbink on this, setting this out more 
> forcefully. If he replies soon enough, then that is at least a sign of 
> good intent and we can potentially be more flexible even though the 
> thing won't be done and dusted by then.

IMHO this is not good enough and you are still missing the point. Red 
Hat offered to donate eCos copyrights to the FSF. They still have the 
copyright. You cannot force them to do anything against their will and 
threatening them with bad press is just plain unprofessional. You need 
to get Red Hat on your side and you need their support.

Just consider your actions from their POV. You offer to donate copyright 
assignments and the maintainers start threating you because you are not 
working fast enough to their liking.

I am not making excuses for them, and I agree a year is an 
embarrassingly long time, but trying to impose deadlines is not the 
right way. Rather, try and find out what the delay is and see how you 
can help move things along.


> 
>> I honestly do not believe that threatening Red Hat with bad press will 
>> achieve anything other than annoy them and strongly urge the 
>> maintainers to reconsider this course of action. You do not know their 
>> reasons for the delay and Red Hat have flip-flopped and suffered far 
>> worse press than this. You need Red Hat on your side and this is not 
>> the way to go about it.
>>
>> Since email contact with Red Hat legal has so far failed, and jifl has 
>> failed to get hold of them via telephone,
> 
> 
> It's true that I would at least like to make contact before Dropping The 
> Bomb.

You should not rely on email on something as important as this.  And 
again, please, stop with the threats. They really will mean nothing to 
Red Hat and will do eCos and the maintainers no good at all.


> 
>> both Paul and I are happy to engage Red Hat legal once again to pursue 
>> this matter with the maintainers blessing.
> 
> 
> I would prefer not to do that - this should come from the maintainers.

The reason we offered to step in in simply because IMO the maintainers 
are going about this in the wrong way. For starters, the publicising of 
the unprofessional threat just further serves to alienate the 
maintainers from the primary copyright holders.

Have you considered why Red Hat legal have not responded to the 
maintainers so far?


> 
>> Failing that, I suggest that you rather draft an open letter (sent 
>> registered) to both Red Hat and the FSF and formally ask them about 
>> the status of Red Hat's transfer and to set a date so that the 
>> copyrights held privately by the maintainers and by eCosCentric can 
>> simultaneously be transferred with Red Hat's copyright to the FSF.
> 
> 
> You may not be aware, but there is an outstanding issue with even the 
> FSF assignment. One which we have an agreement in principle about, but 
> not in practice.This is a publicised guarantee that the FSF understands 
> the purpose of and reasoning behind the existing eCos license and will 
> not seek to "restrict" it (e.g. by switching to full GPL) without 
> consultation with the eCos maintainers.

I am aware. This is also why I suggested an open registered letter to 
both. You can ask the reasons for the delay, tell them about your 
frustrations, and most importantly, how you would like to move forward 
and what you would like to see happen.


> 
>> Knowing Red Hat and the FSF, two months out is a more realistic date 
>> than two weeks (which can easily catch the relevant person on vacation).
> 
> 
> They've had a year already!

So what? Red Hat never set out any time period when they would do it in 
their annoucement. What is the problem with any further delay anyway, 
apart from one or two contributions being stalled? AFAIK there is only 
one company (Mind) which has problems contributing temporarily to either 
Red Hat or eCosCentric (despite both public announcements to forward 
their contributions to the FSF, and eCosCentric's public commitment). 
After all, you also worked for Red Hat so you of all people should also 
know how things work internally :-)

We also know that there are additional complications because Red Hat is 
no longer sole copyright holder, and that eCosCentric and the 
maintainers need to sync with Red Hat in contributing copyrights en 
masse to the FSF. So far eCosCentric have been waiting for the call from 
Red Hat and the FSF for assignment of eCosCentric's copyright, but we 
could equally be proactive about this. We could work this in with the 
offer by Paul and myself to contact Red Hat legal.

I can understand your frustrations, but you should not let them get in 
the way of what you want to achieve nor let them alienate you from the 
people you need support from.

-- Alex

Re: [ECOS] Status of eCos copyright assignments to the FSF?

[Jonathan Larmour]

Alex Schuilenburg wrote:
> Jonathan Larmour wrote:
> 
>> Alex Schuilenburg wrote:
>>
>>> Andrew Lunn wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think its about time we officialy told RedHat about our counter
>>>> press release we will make on 13th Jan 2005. We should give them a
>>>> fair chance to actually make the transfer. I expect they unofficially
>>>> know what is coming, i expect somebody in Redhat is reading
>>>> ecos-maintainers and has seen the discussion we had at the beginning
>>>> of the month. So two weeks notice does not seem too unreasonable.
>>
>>
>>
>> I will again send mail to Mark Webbink on this, setting this out more 
>> forcefully. If he replies soon enough, then that is at least a sign of 
>> good intent and we can potentially be more flexible even though the 
>> thing won't be done and dusted by then.
> 
> 
> IMHO this is not good enough and you are still missing the point.

I understand what you are saying. I just disagree.

> Red 
> Hat offered to donate eCos copyrights to the FSF. They still have the 
> copyright. You cannot force them to do anything against their will

We're not trying to force them to do anything that they haven't already
committed to. Reread
http://www.redhat.com/about/presscenter/2004/press_eCosFSF.html

> and 
> threatening them with bad press is just plain unprofessional.

You are making unfair presumptions about how it's being done. In fact, by
making these types of accusations in a publically archived forum, you
appear to be hyping it up to be an unprofessional "threat", which may now
make them think that's what it is.

> You need 
> to get Red Hat on your side and you need their support.

That's what we're trying to achieve. If the outcome is something that
sounds like the flame you suggest it would be, then I will have done
something very wrong.

> Just consider your actions from their POV. You offer to donate copyright 
> assignments and the maintainers start threating you because you are not 
> working fast enough to their liking.

Again, you make presumptions about how it's being done. And do you _really_
think that even RH think it's being progressed at an acceptable pace?

I don't think we really expect overnight miracles. It would be _something_
just to break their present radio silence. The last correspondence I
received from RH on eCos assignments was 10th December 2003 (i.e. before
even the press release).

> I am not making excuses for them, and I agree a year is an 
> embarrassingly long time, but trying to impose deadlines is not the 
> right way. Rather, try and find out what the delay is and see how you 
> can help move things along.

If we could enter into a dialogue to do just this, then I would agree. But
given the absence of even that, then we have little else to go with.

And it's hardly a "deadline" because nothing necessarily changes just by us
making a statement. It would just be clarifying the maintainers' position
given the repeated questions from eCos users on this, namely that though
we're still grateful with RH's commitment to do the assignment, like eCos
users we're not very happy with the progress and we'd like something done,
and we call on the relevant parties to bring it to a conclusion. But I
don't want to get into a discussion on the wording of something I'd prefer
not to draft in the first place!

>>> I honestly do not believe that threatening Red Hat with bad press 
>>> will achieve anything other than annoy them and strongly urge the 
>>> maintainers to reconsider this course of action. You do not know 
>>> their reasons for the delay and Red Hat have flip-flopped and 
>>> suffered far worse press than this. You need Red Hat on your side and 
>>> this is not the way to go about it.
>>>
>>> Since email contact with Red Hat legal has so far failed, and jifl 
>>> has failed to get hold of them via telephone,
>>
>>
>>
>> It's true that I would at least like to make contact before Dropping 
>> The Bomb.
> 
> 
> You should not rely on email on something as important as this.  And 
> again, please, stop with the threats.

Sigh, I assumed the initial caps would forego the need for a sarcastic
smiley. That was not a "threat" (does it _really_ read like a serious
statement?), but me mimicing your tone.

> They really will mean nothing to
> Red Hat and will do eCos and the maintainers no good at all.

We're asking them to spend literally just a few minutes on a reply. If they
can't even manage that, what conclusion would you draw?

>>> both Paul and I are happy to engage Red Hat legal once again to 
>>> pursue this matter with the maintainers blessing.
>>
>>
>>
>> I would prefer not to do that - this should come from the maintainers.
> 
> 
> The reason we offered to step in in simply because IMO the maintainers 
> are going about this in the wrong way.

Then I don't think it's obvious that you would represent the maintainers'
views, so it would not be appropriate for you to step in.

> For starters, the publicising of 
> the unprofessional threat just further serves to alienate the 
> maintainers from the primary copyright holders.

I would appreciate you stop calling this an unprofessional threat when you
don't know what's actually being said to them. That in itself is
unprofessional :-P.

> Have you considered why Red Hat legal have not responded to the 
> maintainers so far?

I've thought of all sorts of reasons. If they would just tell us, even
briefly, we would almost certainly be very understanding.

>>> Failing that, I suggest that you rather draft an open letter (sent 
>>> registered) to both Red Hat and the FSF and formally ask them about 
>>> the status of Red Hat's transfer and to set a date so that the 
>>> copyrights held privately by the maintainers and by eCosCentric can 
>>> simultaneously be transferred with Red Hat's copyright to the FSF.
>>
>>
>>
>> You may not be aware, but there is an outstanding issue with even the 
>> FSF assignment. One which we have an agreement in principle about, but 
>> not in practice.This is a publicised guarantee that the FSF 
>> understands the purpose of and reasoning behind the existing eCos 
>> license and will not seek to "restrict" it (e.g. by switching to full 
>> GPL) without consultation with the eCos maintainers.
> 
> 
> I am aware. This is also why I suggested an open registered letter to 
> both. You can ask the reasons for the delay, tell them about your 
> frustrations, and most importantly, how you would like to move forward 
> and what you would like to see happen.

I have no reason to have confidence a letter will be treated any better
than an e-mail by either party. At least an e-mail is less effort to
respond to. But at this stage, there's no real point bugging the FSF, as
they'll only wake up when RH do actually start getting things assigned.
Until then eCos cannot be an FSF project (see below).

>>> Knowing Red Hat and the FSF, two months out is a more realistic date 
>>> than two weeks (which can easily catch the relevant person on vacation).
>>
>> They've had a year already!
> 
> 
> So what? Red Hat never set out any time period when they would do it in 
> their annoucement. What is the problem with any further delay anyway, 
> apart from one or two contributions being stalled?

Because it is the one big thing that stands in the way of considering an
eCos v3 release which is something we have to think about as time carries
on. We talked about this IRL the other week!

> We also know that there are additional complications because Red Hat is 
> no longer sole copyright holder, and that eCosCentric and the 
> maintainers need to sync with Red Hat in contributing copyrights en 
> masse to the FSF. So far eCosCentric have been waiting for the call from 
> Red Hat and the FSF for assignment of eCosCentric's copyright, but we 
> could equally be proactive about this.

You cannot. The FSF will not receive assignments of eCos code, because eCos
is not an FSF project. eCos is not an FSF project because it contains a
documentation license that the FSF finds objectionable, which is fair
enough for them. The documentation license can only be resolved when RH
completes their assignment.

No great synchronisation is particularly required, other than that RH has
to go first.

> I can understand your frustrations, but you should not let them get in 
> the way of what you want to achieve nor let them alienate you from the 
> people you need support from.

I understand your fear that the outcome is an e-mail that says "Assign
everything RIGHT NOW or we'll do a REALLY BAD THING". This is not what's
going to happen, not least because it would be wrong. Your fears in that
respect are unjustified. But it's about time we did something to move
beyond repeated unanswered attempts to engage in a dialogue. At the same
time, it would clarify the position to users.

Jifl
-- 
--["No sense being pessimistic, it wouldn't work anyway"]-- Opinions==mine

Re: [ECOS] Status of eCos copyright assignments to the FSF?

[Andrew Lunn]

You raise a lot of points, which i will just address three.

> >>both Paul and I are happy to engage Red Hat legal once again to pursue 
> >>this matter with the maintainers blessing.

RedHat appears to be ignoring all emails from the maintainers. Why do
you think they will not ignore you as well? How are you different from
us? 

> >>Failing that, I suggest that you rather draft an open letter (sent 
> >>registered) 

I don't see the difference between a registered mail letter and an
email. We all use email every day. We know that if we don't receive a
bounce, its very likely it landed in the recipients inbox. All a
registered letter tells us it reached the receptionist on the front
desk. Either way, it just as easy to file into /dev/null. 

To me, the deliverary mechansim is not important. What is important is
to try to find out why RH policy is to forward everything to
/dev/null. 

> I can understand your frustrations, but you should not let them get in 
> the way of what you want to achieve nor let them alienate you from the 
> people you need support from.

What i find frustrating is not the time its taking, its the lack of
dialog. Why does RH simply not reply saying,

"We are working on it, it should be done any time soon",

or

"Sorry for the delay. We consider it a low priority task, and our
legal team was overloaded by that SCO thing... Hopefully we can get to
this sometime soon..."

The experiance from the last year is that all our attempts to start a
dialog by sending emails to various people does not work. So what we
need is some other way of kick starting the dialog. Maybe this comes
down to one of us actually phyically going and knocking on the door?

        Andrew

Re: [ECOS] Status of eCos copyright assignments to the FSF?

[Alex Schuilenburg]

I am very pleased to see Jifl finally got a response from Red Hat.

Just to close a few questions you raised...

Andrew Lunn wrote:
> You raise a lot of points, which i will just address three.
> 
> 
>>>> both Paul and I are happy to engage Red Hat legal once again to
>>>>  pursue this matter with the maintainers blessing.
> 
> 
> RedHat appears to be ignoring all emails from the maintainers. Why do
>  you think they will not ignore you as well? How are you different 
> from us?

Paul and I have not had the same problem Jifl had contacting Red Hat and
have had dealings with Red Hat legal while you were apparently being
ignored, that is all.


> 
> 
>>>> Failing that, I suggest that you rather draft an open letter 
>>>> (sent registered)
> 
> 
> I don't see the difference between a registered mail letter and an 
> email. We all use email every day. We know that if we don't receive a
>  bounce, its very likely it landed in the recipients inbox. All a 
> registered letter tells us it reached the receptionist on the front 
> desk. Either way, it just as easy to file into /dev/null.
> 
> To me, the deliverary mechansim is not important. What is important 
> is to try to find out why RH policy is to forward everything to 
> /dev/null.

Just because an email landed in a recipient's inbox does not mean that
they will read it.  Spam filters and a number of other things can easily
get in the way, and even the email RFC does state that email delivery is
not guaranteed. For example, postfix by default will accept email sent
to any aribitrary address and some large sites by default will bin
mailer-daemon email because of the large amount of spam sent (who wants
their mail queues clogged with undeliverable email).

Registered letters offer proof of delivery and, in the event that you
wish to take things further legally or otherwise, do mean that the other
party cannot claim to have never received the notice/letter.



> 
> 
>> I can understand your frustrations, but you should not let them get
>>  in the way of what you want to achieve nor let them alienate you 
>> from the people you need support from.
> 
> 
> What i find frustrating is not the time its taking, its the lack of 
> dialog. Why does RH simply not reply saying,
> 
> "We are working on it, it should be done any time soon",
> 
> or
> 
> "Sorry for the delay. We consider it a low priority task, and our 
> legal team was overloaded by that SCO thing... Hopefully we can get 
> to this sometime soon..."
> 
> The experiance from the last year is that all our attempts to start a
>  dialog by sending emails to various people does not work. So what we
>  need is some other way of kick starting the dialog. Maybe this comes
>  down to one of us actually phyically going and knocking on the door?
> 
> 
This is excactly what the registered letter would have achieved, only it
would have been the postman delivering your start to the dialogue ;-)


Jifl earlier also wrote:
[...]

>> Red Hat offered to donate eCos copyrights to the FSF. They still 
>> have the copyright. You cannot force them to do anything against 
>> their will
> 
> 
> We're not trying to force them to do anything that they haven't 
> already committed to. Reread 
> http://www.redhat.com/about/presscenter/2004/press_eCosFSF.html

My point was not the assignment but the time period you were attempting
to enforce.


> 
>> and threatening them with bad press is just plain unprofessional.
> 
> 
> You are making unfair presumptions about how it's being done. In 
> fact, by making these types of accusations in a publically archived 
> forum, you appear to be hyping it up to be an unprofessional 
> "threat", which may now make them think that's what it is.

I refer you to
http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-maintainers/2004-12/msg00001.html
in which you say you will warn Red Hat that if it does not respond ASAP,
you will issue a press release from the maintainers stating that Red Hat
had broken its promise. That reads like a threat to me.


[...]
>> Just consider your actions from their POV. You offer to donate 
>> copyright assignments and the maintainers start threating you 
>> because you are not working fast enough to their liking.
> 
> 
> Again, you make presumptions about how it's being done. 

I was only going from what you wrote in your previous email. You may not 
have intended to threaten Red Hat, but that is certainly how I and a 
number of others read it.


> And do you _really_ think that even RH think it's being progressed at an acceptable pace?

It does not matter either what I think. As the Red Hat response shows, 
it was not only Red Hat but also the FSF that caused the delay. Imagine 
if Red Hat legal were on a two week holiday and you carried out your 
press release, only to later find out that it was the FSF that were the 
root of the delay.


>> I am not making excuses for them, and I agree a year is an 
>> embarrassingly long time, but trying to impose deadlines is not the
>>  right way. Rather, try and find out what the delay is and see how 
>> you can help move things along.
> 
> 
> If we could enter into a dialogue to do just this, then I would 
> agree. But given the absence of even that, then we have little else 
> to go with.

My point was that while you felt there were no further routes to a 
dialogue, I know of at least another 1/2 dozen routes Paul and I could 
have tried that almost certainly would have solicited a response.

[...]
>>> It's true that I would at least like to make contact before 
>>> Dropping The Bomb.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> You should not rely on email on something as important as this. And
>> again, please, stop with the threats.
> 
> 
> Sigh, I assumed the initial caps would forego the need for a 
> sarcastic smiley. That was not a "threat" (does it _really_ read like
>  a serious statement?), but me mimicing your tone.

This serves to illustrate exactly how easy it is to misinterpret email.


[...]
>>>> both Paul and I are happy to engage Red Hat legal once again to
>>>>  pursue this matter with the maintainers blessing.
>>> 
>>> I would prefer not to do that - this should come from the 
>>> maintainers.
>> 
>> The reason we offered to step in in simply because IMO the 
>> maintainers are going about this in the wrong way.
> 
> Then I don't think it's obvious that you would represent the 
> maintainers' views, so it would not be appropriate for you to step 
> in.

Errr, we were not offering to do anything more than find out the status 
of the assignment and jolly it along. We could have done this anyway 
without your blessing or representing the maintainers because 
eCosCentric also has a strong interest in the assignment. We just tried 
to work with the maintainers. You appear to think we are working aginst you.


>> For starters, the publicising of the unprofessional threat just 
>> further serves to alienate the maintainers from the primary 
>> copyright holders.
> 
> 
> I would appreciate you stop calling this an unprofessional threat 
> when you don't know what's actually being said to them. That in 
> itself is unprofessional :-P.

I was only going from your email
http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-maintainers/2004-12/msg00001.html

[...]
>> I am aware. This is also why I suggested an open registered letter 
>> to both. You can ask the reasons for the delay, tell them about 
>> your frustrations, and most importantly, how you would like to move
>>  forward and what you would like to see happen.
> 
> 
> I have no reason to have confidence a letter will be treated any 
> better than an e-mail by either party. At least an e-mail is less 
> effort to respond to. But at this stage, there's no real point 
> bugging the FSF, as they'll only wake up when RH do actually start 
> getting things assigned. Until then eCos cannot be an FSF project 
> (see below).

As above, a registered letter would be far more attention grabbing than 
email and harder to ignore or deny receipt than email.

Anyway, you have now established contact and hopefully can keep the ball 
rolling. I think we have beaten this topic to death anyway :-)

-- Alex