From: Jonathan Larmour <jifl@jifvik.org>
To: Tony Moretto <tmoretto@redhat.com>, Mark Webbink <mwebbink@redhat.com>
Cc: eCos Maintainers <ecos-maintainers@sources.redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Future code ownership
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 02:22:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3E2E0050.4020601@jifvik.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3E20D5FF.6040104@jifvik.org>
Hi Tony and Mark,
Is there really no interest or comment from Red Hat on the below? The
clock is ticking.
Jifl
Jonathan Larmour wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I would like to bring the issue in this thread to a conclusion without
> much further delay. However I agree with the sentiments that we should
> seek an official position from Red Hat to consider before we make an
> irrevocable step.
>
> To that end I am CC'ing this to two people in Red Hat I believe should
> be able to inform us, and I hope they (or some more appropriate person)
> will be able to give us an idea of Red Hat's official position. Alas, I
> think I will have to put a two week limit on this (Sun Jan 26th) - if
> nothing is received in that time, we will have to reach a conclusion
> without Red Hat. That is more than enough time for Red Hat to discuss
> this internally.
>
> To Tony and Mark: in summary, the issue is the continuation of copyright
> assignments to Red Hat which a significant number of contributors now
> object to, mostly due to Red Hat no longer having any significant role
> in eCos's development and therefore little interest in its success. Some
> people also feel aggrieved by Red Hat for reasons of their own. Some
> feel that, even given assurances, Red Hat can no longer be trusted.
> Whatever the reason (and we aren't responsible for those opinions!), it
> is something that needs to be addressed in the interests of the eCos
> open source community.
>
> To that end, a number of options were presented as per
> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/ecos-maintainers/2002-12/msg00001.html and
> followed up to in subsequent messages. Although no conclusion has yet
> been reached, the two options being considered most appear to be
> dropping the requirement for copyright assignments completely, or
> assigning to a not-for-profit entity. In the latter case, SPI (Software
> in the Public Interest) who represent many other Open Source groups
> (even owning the Open Source brand) such as Debian Linux, GNOME, etc.
> have been approached and have stated their willingness to do so.
>
> Also in the latter case, we see some possibility of permitting
> exemptions from the usual GPL licence obligations for large companies
> who are too dumb to embrace Free Software, but at a price. That price
> would be put exclusively towards the benefit of eCos, the Open Source
> project. Restrictions would be put in place to prevent maintainer's
> benefitting from decisions about how that money would be spent in which
> they took part.
>
> It is this more than anything that we seek Red Hat's opinion of. Would
> they in principle be willing to work with the maintainers and SPI to
> arrange such licensing exemptions? Would they be willing to outline what
> the likely terms in principle would be? I should probably point out that
> if we cannot come to some mutual agreement then Red Hat will not be able
> to benefit at all. I should also add that this cannot be the subject of
> long negotiation. There is a 2.0 beta release coming up, with a 2.0
> final soon after. We will not delay the releases to have this resolved,
> and will need to reach a decision with or without Red Hat.
>
> If you wish, you may reply in private to me and I will gladly forward to
> all maintainers, although purely for transparency it would be preferred
> if this was in the open on the ecos-maintainers mailing list (which has
> public archives) if it is commercially possible. Alternatively, you can
> phone me, and I will act as intermediary as best I can, although the
> final decision will be collective. Contact phone number available if you
> e-mail me off list.
>
> I should add for the absence of doubt to Tony and Mark, that this is
> purely in the context of an eCos maintainer, and nothing to do with
> eCosCentric or any other commercial organisation. In this discussion, we
> the maintainers (made up of people from eCosCentric, Mind, Ascom as well
> as Red Hat) are acting purely for the benefit of the open source
> project, even if this is contrary to our employer's preferences; as with
> other open source projects.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Jifl
> // Nominal eCos chief maintainer
--
--[ "You can complain because roses have thorns, or you ]--
--[ can rejoice because thorns have roses." -Lincoln ]-- Opinions==mine
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-01-22 2:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-12-19 11:52 Frank Ch. Eigler
2002-12-19 14:39 ` Bart Veer
2002-12-20 14:21 ` Frank Ch. Eigler
2002-12-22 15:21 ` Bart Veer
2002-12-23 7:53 ` Frank Ch. Eigler
2003-01-02 14:55 ` Jonathan Larmour
2003-01-12 2:42 ` Jonathan Larmour
2003-01-22 2:22 ` Jonathan Larmour [this message]
[not found] <3E145A86.5050601@eCosCentric.com>
2003-01-02 16:21 ` Frank Ch. Eigler
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-12-16 7:52 Jonathan Larmour
2002-12-17 0:44 ` Andrew Lunn
2002-12-17 19:57 ` Jonathan Larmour
2002-12-17 1:09 ` Andrew Lunn
2002-12-17 15:24 ` Bart Veer
2002-12-18 0:40 ` Andrew Lunn
2002-12-19 5:09 ` Jonathan Larmour
2002-12-17 19:54 ` Jonathan Larmour
2002-12-17 20:00 ` Gary Thomas
2002-12-17 1:27 ` Andrew Lunn
2002-12-17 5:47 ` Gary Thomas
2002-12-17 9:16 ` Andrew Lunn
2002-12-17 8:52 ` Gary Thomas
2002-12-17 12:29 ` Jonathan Larmour
2002-12-17 8:29 ` Andrew Lunn
2002-12-17 12:23 ` Jonathan Larmour
2002-12-17 8:38 ` Andrew Lunn
2002-12-17 12:18 ` Jonathan Larmour
2002-12-17 8:42 ` Andrew Lunn
2002-12-17 8:56 ` Gary Thomas
2002-12-17 12:00 ` Jonathan Larmour
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3E2E0050.4020601@jifvik.org \
--to=jifl@jifvik.org \
--cc=ecos-maintainers@sources.redhat.com \
--cc=mwebbink@redhat.com \
--cc=tmoretto@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).