From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13197 invoked by alias); 17 Dec 2002 20:23:47 -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 13137 invoked from network); 17 Dec 2002 20:23:45 -0000 Message-ID: <3DFF87CC.7090901@eCosCentric.com> Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 12:23:00 -0000 From: Jonathan Larmour User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020827 X-Accept-Language: en, en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Lunn CC: eCos Maintainers Subject: Re: Future code ownership References: <3DFDF6B7.8090008@jifvik.org> <20021217162909.GA1044@biferten.ma.tech.ascom.ch> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00014.txt.bz2 Andrew Lunn wrote: >>But we can give them an option: a solution is to allow licence opt-outs, >>like Red Hat had been able to do by themselves up to earlier this year >>(but not after personal copyright from the maintainers got added of >>course). This would set us at a par with commercial OS vendors. But we >>can't compromise our integrity without a considerable pound of flesh. So >>we charge. The figures would probably depend per deal, but it could well >>be in the order of thousands of dollars. Maybe. Don't know. Haven't tried >>it :-). Unfortunately that money would have to be split with Red Hat, a >>commercial entity, but as Red Hat's role in eCos diminishes, so too is >>their leverage. > > > A question which is probably out of scope of this discussion: > > How do you measure RH role and hence there split of the money? > Proportion of the number of patches per year? Lines of code > contributed per year? Number of files with pure RH copywrite headers? I imagine it will be subject to negotiation at the time. Since it requires both parties to agree, it's in their interests to come to some fair accomodation. It may even be negotiated per deal, depending on where the prime interest comes from (newly written stuff, or old stuff). But as I said, as Red Hat's role diminishes, so is their entitlement. It may be that no deal can be made - that would be stupid for RH, but I would rather not go into how likely I think that would be then ;-/). So I'm afraid there's nothing else that can be said about the specifics. The whole reason for the hiatus in resolving the assignment and ownership issue was trying to resolve this type of thing, and it's a shame that it came to naught. Jifl -- eCosCentric http://www.eCosCentric.com/ --[ "You can complain because roses have thorns, or you ]-- --[ can rejoice because thorns have roses." -Lincoln ]-- Opinions==mine