Re: NAND support

Re: NAND support

[John Dallaway]

[ moving to the ecos-maintainers list ]

Hi Simon, Ricky and Jifl

Simon Kallweit wrote:

> John Dallaway wrote:
> 
>> Note also that every individual who has made a significant contribution
>> to the UFFS code would be required to sign a copyright assignment for
>> acceptance of the code into the eCos repository. Not just the original
>> author.
> 
> He is the only author so far, and applied for the FSF assignment right
> away. I'm not the guru when it comes to licenses, but I think he would
> like to have UFFS on a dual license, an eCos license and a separate LGPL
> version for the current users to continue with. Is there a problem with
> this?

Dual licensing _might_ be a problem because only the copyright holder
can decide how to license the code. If the copyright assignment to the
FSF has not already been made then I would suggest that Ricky delays
copyright assignment until we have a firm plan of action.

Ricky, could you clarify whether copyright in the UFFS sources has
already been assigned to the FSF?

Jifl, can you also advise here please? Could dual licensing of UFFS
under both LGPL and the eCos Public License be achieved with a single
source base using a single license banner?

John Dallaway

Re: NAND support

[Ricky Zheng]

John Dallaway wrote:
> [ moving to the ecos-maintainers list ]
>
> Hi Simon, Ricky and Jifl
>
> Simon Kallweit wrote:
>
>   
>> John Dallaway wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> Note also that every individual who has made a significant contribution
>>> to the UFFS code would be required to sign a copyright assignment for
>>> acceptance of the code into the eCos repository. Not just the original
>>> author.
>>>       
>> He is the only author so far, and applied for the FSF assignment right
>> away. I'm not the guru when it comes to licenses, but I think he would
>> like to have UFFS on a dual license, an eCos license and a separate LGPL
>> version for the current users to continue with. Is there a problem with
>> this?
>>     
>
> Dual licensing _might_ be a problem because only the copyright holder
> can decide how to license the code. If the copyright assignment to the
> FSF has not already been made then I would suggest that Ricky delays
> copyright assignment until we have a firm plan of action.
>
> Ricky, could you clarify whether copyright in the UFFS sources has
> already been assigned to the FSF?
>   
I've got reply from FSF:

"Thanks for your interest in contributing to free software. The Free
Software Foundation only takes assignment on code that is becoming a
part of the GNU project..."

So no, it hasn't been assigned to the FSF.


Best regards,

Ricky.

Re: NAND support

[Jonathan Larmour]

John Dallaway wrote:
> Simon Kallweit wrote:
>>He is the only author so far, and applied for the FSF assignment right
>>away. I'm not the guru when it comes to licenses, but I think he would
>>like to have UFFS on a dual license, an eCos license and a separate LGPL
>>version for the current users to continue with. Is there a problem with
>>this?
> 
> Dual licensing _might_ be a problem because only the copyright holder
> can decide how to license the code. If the copyright assignment to the
> FSF has not already been made then I would suggest that Ricky delays
> copyright assignment until we have a firm plan of action.
> 
> Ricky, could you clarify whether copyright in the UFFS sources has
> already been assigned to the FSF?
> 
> Jifl, can you also advise here please? Could dual licensing of UFFS
> under both LGPL and the eCos Public License be achieved with a single
> source base using a single license banner?

Both these licences are acceptable to the FSF, so I can't see any issue 
with it.

There's then the matter of how to achieve this. Here's my recommendation 
of how to modify the banner:

// ####UFFSCOPYRIGHTBEGIN####
// -------------------------------------------
// This file is part of UFFS, the Ultra-low-cost Flash File System.
// Copyright (C) 200x, 200y Free Software Foundation, Inc.
//
// UFFS is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under
// the terms of either:
//  a) the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software
//     Foundation, either version 2 or (at your option) any later
//     version; or
//  b) the GNU Library General Public License as published by the Free
//     Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your
//     option) any later version.
//
// UFFS is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT
// ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or
// FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the GNU General Public License
// or GNU Library General Public License, as applicable, for more details.
//
// You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
// and GNU Library General Public License along with UFFS; if not, write
// to the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor,
// Boston, MA  02110-1301, USA.
//
// If using UFFS under license option (a), then the following special
// exception applies:
//   As a special exception, if other files instantiate templates or use
//   macros or inline functions from this file, or you compile this file
//   and link it with other works to produce a work based on this file,
//   this file does not by itself cause the resulting work to be covered
//   by the GNU General Public License. However the source code for this
//   file must still be made available in accordance with section (3) of
//   the GNU General Public License v2.
//
//   This exception does not invalidate any other reasons why a work based
//   on this file might be covered by the GNU General Public License.
// -------------------------------------------
// ####UFFSCOPYRIGHTEND####

NB, notice the indentation I have applied to the exception text, and the 
altered copyright banner markers.

You should also add COPYING.LIB for LGPL v2 to the top of the UFFS package.

I haven't been following things, but there may be a source of naming 
confusion with another UFFS (Unified FFS). Something to think about.

Jifl
-- 
eCosCentric Limited      http://www.eCosCentric.com/     The eCos experts
Barnwell House, Barnwell Drive, Cambridge, UK.       Tel: +44 1223 245571
Registered in England and Wales: Reg No 4422071.
------["The best things in life aren't things."]------      Opinions==mine

Re: NAND support

[John Dallaway]

Hi Jifl, Ricky and Simon

Jonathan Larmour wrote:

> John Dallaway wrote:
> 
>> Jifl, can you also advise here please? Could dual licensing of UFFS
>> under both LGPL and the eCos Public License be achieved with a single
>> source base using a single license banner?
> 
> Both these licences are acceptable to the FSF, so I can't see any issue
> with it.
> 
> There's then the matter of how to achieve this. Here's my recommendation
> of how to modify the banner:

[ snip ]

Jifl, thanks for the example license text. This seems much more sensible
than maintaining two sets of sources with different license headers.

Ricky, are you happy to incorporate the license headers proposed by Jifl
into your master sources?

Simon, it would be useful if you would post an outline of how you
propose to integrate UFFS and NAND device support with eCos to the
ecos-devel list so we can avoid any surprises later on. This will be a
great addition to eCos!

John Dallaway

Re: NAND support

[ricky.zheng]

Hi all,

Quoting John Dallaway <john@dallaway.org.uk>:

> Hi Jifl, Ricky and Simon
>
> Jonathan Larmour wrote:
>
>> John Dallaway wrote:
>>
>>> Jifl, can you also advise here please? Could dual licensing of UFFS
>>> under both LGPL and the eCos Public License be achieved with a single
>>> source base using a single license banner?
>>
>> Both these licences are acceptable to the FSF, so I can't see any issue
>> with it.
>>
>> There's then the matter of how to achieve this. Here's my recommendation
>> of how to modify the banner:
>
> [ snip ]
>
> Jifl, thanks for the example license text. This seems much more sensible
> than maintaining two sets of sources with different license headers.
>
> Ricky, are you happy to incorporate the license headers proposed by Jifl
> into your master sources?

I think it's a great proposal, and I will do it by this weekend.

About another UFFS (Unified FFS):
I started UFFS (Ultra-low-cost FFS) at 2005 and released it to public  
(sourceforge.net) under GPL at early 2007. Unified FFS project was  
started at late 2008 by students from Epitech, the first stable  
version is expected at next month.

Ultra-low-cost FFS has no relationship with Unified FFS.

>
> Simon, it would be useful if you would post an outline of how you
> propose to integrate UFFS and NAND device support with eCos to the
> ecos-devel list so we can avoid any surprises later on. This will be a
> great addition to eCos!

eCos is a great platform, a working UFFS package on eCos certainly  
encourage me put more effort on UFFS :)

Cheers,
Ricky Zheng