From: Jonathan Larmour <jifl@eCosCentric.com>
To: Gary Thomas <gary@mlbassoc.com>
Cc: eCos Maintainers <ecos-maintainers@sources.redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Copyright resolution
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 20:45:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3E7B7990.8080700@eCosCentric.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1048273005.4073.1061.camel@hermes.chez-thomas.org>
Gary Thomas wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-03-20 at 21:25, Jonathan Larmour wrote:
>>
>>a) Create our own "eCos Foundation" whether not-for-profit or otherwise,
>>and possibly then try to do a deal with Red Hat.;
>
> I'm in favor of this, but it must be seen as vendor neutral, i.e. not
> favoring any commercial participant (eCosCentric or MLB or Mind or ...)
We can thrash out the details to ensure this, but to be honest, with
licensing deals off the table it won't be that relevant... it will just be
a repository for IP.
There are some other considerations with this one: if we want to make it a
proper not-for-profit company we may have some difficulties with setting
it up. Also NFP companies require approval I believe, which can take many
months.
Finally, we may well require a lawyer to set up the appropriate articles
of association or whatever since our situation won't be appropriate for
something "off the shelf".
These aspects highlight one issue: this will take money to set up.
One disadvantage I omitted to mention is that some companies are reluctant
to make assignments, or may even object outright. There's one big one
(starts with 'I' :-)) that I know falls into the latter category.
One other option I didn't consider till now is the FSF. With the licensing
suggestion gone, we don't have the same impediments. Perhaps we should
consider approaching them after all. Would they take us under their wing
even if we had dual copyright with Red Hat? Would we _want_ to be an FSF
project with the potential influence from above that that may entail?
[snip]
>>I would like to hear from every maintainer in this thread. Unless we get
>>complete consensus, I would suggest thrashing things out here a little,
>>and then setting up a phone conference to reach the conclusion.
>>
>>I won't say what my favoured personal preference is until tomorrow as I
>>want to prevent this post appearing biased :-P.
>
> By "tomorrow", I assume that you mean Friday, March 21?
I just meant I'd send my views then, not a phone conference. We'll need
more notice to be sure of getting everyone for that.
> I'm ready to discuss this at length whenever y'all are. I note that
> it's been 15 hours since Jonathan sent this, and AFAICT this is the
> only response so far.
I know Bart's opinion from IRC, but I'll let him speak for himself.
For me, I have a pretty clear view of the advantages and disadvantages
both ways, but that doesn't make it a clear-cut answer :-). I think on the
whole I'm for keeping assignments to a single entity, not least because I
don't think we can accept contributions without the "company disclaimer"
document thingy mentioned before, and frankly I think most developers will
have that type of contract.... at which point we may as well just continue
with assignments as the _extra_ bureaucratic hurdle is minimal (with the
exception of companies beginning with "I" :-)).
I'm still not decided on the details of that. I'd be interested in other's
views on the FSF, but I'm certainly wary of the financial and bureaucratic
obligations of doing our own. It may be easier and/or cheaper to set up in
the UK rather than the US (thinking of lawyer's fees as well here). It
probably _wouldn't_ need to be explicitly not-for-profit, with the extra
burdens that has, as we can enshrine something good enough in the articles
of association and the entity wouldn't be handling money.
Jifl
--
eCosCentric http://www.eCosCentric.com/ The eCos and RedBoot experts
--[ "You can complain because roses have thorns, or you ]--
--[ can rejoice because thorns have roses." -Lincoln ]-- Opinions==mine
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-03-21 20:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-03-21 4:27 Jonathan Larmour
2003-03-21 18:56 ` Gary Thomas
2003-03-21 20:45 ` Jonathan Larmour [this message]
2003-03-21 22:28 ` Bart Veer
2003-03-26 15:15 ` Jonathan Larmour
2003-03-28 18:07 ` Nick Garnett
2003-03-25 16:37 ` John Dallaway
2003-03-25 16:41 ` Gary Thomas
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=3E7B7990.8080700@eCosCentric.com \
--to=jifl@ecoscentric.com \
--cc=ecos-maintainers@sources.redhat.com \
--cc=gary@mlbassoc.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).