From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30507 invoked by alias); 26 Feb 2003 09:37:56 -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 30485 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2003 09:37:53 -0000 Message-ID: <3E5C8AEA.5090603@ecoscentric.com> Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 09:37:00 -0000 From: Alex Schuilenburg User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gary Thomas CC: ecos-maintainers@sources.redhat.com Subject: Checking in code that is copyright Mind X-Enigmail-Version: 0.71.0.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00053.txt.bz2 Hi Gary Regarding your recent bunch of checkins. It was my understanding that until the licensing issue has been resolved either way with Red Hat that the maintainers still require code assignments to Red Hat (as per Jifl's recent email to our friend from Liverpool), although the maintainers themselves are free to check in their own personal contributions. The purpose of this was that, if in the event Red Hat agreed, the code would be assigned to a NFP organisation as per the gentlemans agreement with all the maintainers. The maintainers at eCosCentric have certainly been adhering to this policy. As the ecos repository now stands, if an agreement were to be made with Red Hat to assign the code to a NFP organisation to enable it to derive revenue from licensing of the code, the maintainers would also now require assignment from Mind as well as themselves. Could you please explain your position with regard to the policy? Thanks -- Alex