Way forward with FSF

Way forward with FSF

[Jonathan Larmour]

Us guys at eCosCentric have been thinking a little about ways to move 
forward with the FSF. I have just prodded the FSF again, in a slightly 
more forceful way. I can imagine the SCO stuff is taking up their time 
which won't help.

At the same time, there seems to be evidence that RH are sitting on 
assignments, although one has just come through just now. How many others 
are affected? I seem to recall at least one.

A compromise has been suggested that won't cause problems with the FSF 
later, but will make us more independent of RH (which as we know stops 
some people from contributing). However it needs the buy-in from everyone, 
naturally.

The idea is that instead of assigning to RH, contributors could assign 
direct to individual maintainers. When the FSF is sorted out, the 
individual maintainer(s) will assign everything at that point to the FSF. 
Another possibility is to assign to eCosCentric, and eCosCentric would 
make a public commitment to assign to the FSF immediately once everything 
is going. That might be easier logistically, but I can understand it if 
others here are hesitant about this. But the public commitment may address 
this.

Certainly of the eCosCentric maintainers (me, Bart, Nick, John), we are 
able to at least offer eCosCentric's facilities: mail, phone, fax, etc. 
and are prepared to deal with the admin overhead of doing so. If this 
becomes new policy we'll want new assignments from existing contributors 
so there'll be quite a few to deal with, at least at first.

To be clear, this isn't an attempt to take over :-). All your eCos do not 
belong to us :).  As such, if any other maintainer wants to accept 
assignments (and put up their mail, phone, fax details on the web, mail 
back executed assignment, etc.etc.) then we can easily list more than one 
option to contact on the website. Although in that case, if someone opts 
for that option, they should take care they do not have something in their 
own employment contract that will mean all the IP assigned to them goes to 
their employer! Mark and Andrew would probably be affected by this.

Also, in the case of Andrew, it would probably be advisable to explicitly 
write to RH legal to "cancel" your assignment. For Mark, I guess until the 
FSF arrangement is set up, its probably least problematic to continue 
allowing RH copyright contributions.

Or if people aren't happy with this suggestion, we can just maintain the 
status quo until the FSF is sorted out. We're just looking for a 
constructive way forward. If people want to just wait until the FSF 
resolved since, of course, it should be Real Soon Now, then it may not be 
worth the effort putting this temporary compromise in place. I would like 
to hope this would be the case, but also want to cut our losses.

Thoughts?

Jifl
-- 
eCosCentric    http://www.eCosCentric.com/    The eCos and RedBoot experts
--["No sense being pessimistic, it wouldn't work anyway"]-- Opinions==mine

Re: Way forward with FSF

[Andrew Lunn]

> The idea is that instead of assigning to RH, contributors could assign 
> direct to individual maintainers. When the FSF is sorted out, the 
> individual maintainer(s) will assign everything at that point to the FSF. 
> Another possibility is to assign to eCosCentric, and eCosCentric would 
> make a public commitment to assign to the FSF immediately once everything 
> is going. That might be easier logistically, but I can understand it if 
> others here are hesitant about this. But the public commitment may address 
> this.

An assignment is a two way thing. Both the assignee and assigner
agree. It would be simple to add a section to the assignemt which says
that eCosCentric agrees to transfer the assignment to FSF imeadiately
they agree to accept the assignments for eCos. This should remove most
peoples worries.

I suppose we should also consider what happens if it all falls through
with FSF. They change there mind, or say they don't have the resources
needed to sort this out until this SCO thing is sorted out, they go
bankrupt paying legal fees, get burnt down in a bush fire,... The
assignments are then in limbo, being held by eCosCentric waiting to be
tranferred to somewhere they cannot go.
 
> To be clear, this isn't an attempt to take over :-). All your eCos do not 
> belong to us :).  As such, if any other maintainer wants to accept 
> assignments (and put up their mail, phone, fax details on the web, mail 
> back executed assignment, etc.etc.) then we can easily list more than one 
> option to contact on the website.

No thanks. I don't have the resources, willingness etc....

One other thing comes to mind. It can be hard for some people to get
the PHB to sign the assignment. Having to get first an eCosCentric one
and then an FSF one signed will be double trouble. Maybe something can
be added to the eCosCentric one so that it can act as an automatic
forwarder to FSF once they are up an running. Signing the FSF
assignment then becomes optional for people with an eCosCentric
assignment.

        Andrew

Re: Way forward with FSF

[Jonathan Larmour]

Andrew Lunn wrote:
>>The idea is that instead of assigning to RH, contributors could assign 
>>direct to individual maintainers. When the FSF is sorted out, the 
>>individual maintainer(s) will assign everything at that point to the FSF. 
>>Another possibility is to assign to eCosCentric, and eCosCentric would 
>>make a public commitment to assign to the FSF immediately once everything 
>>is going. That might be easier logistically, but I can understand it if 
>>others here are hesitant about this. But the public commitment may address 
>>this.
> 
> 
> An assignment is a two way thing. Both the assignee and assigner
> agree. It would be simple to add a section to the assignemt which says
> that eCosCentric agrees to transfer the assignment to FSF imeadiately
> they agree to accept the assignments for eCos. This should remove most
> peoples worries.

That's tricky actually. Ownership is either given or not given. It's 
strictly legally not possible to set such future conditions. Once the 
assigned-to maintainer or eCosCentric has it, I don't believe it's 
possible to set obligations on it within the legal assignment contract 
itself. Think of it this way: what would be the redress if the assignee 
reneged on it - they already own the code so it's not possible to take it 
back (in law).

More practically, we'd want legal advice to change the assignment contract 
itself.

> I suppose we should also consider what happens if it all falls through
> with FSF. They change there mind, or say they don't have the resources
> needed to sort this out until this SCO thing is sorted out, they go
> bankrupt paying legal fees, get burnt down in a bush fire,... The
> assignments are then in limbo, being held by eCosCentric waiting to be
> tranferred to somewhere they cannot go.

I see your point, but I don't think we really have many alternatives. The 
public commitment isn't a legal thing, but since eCosCentric is focussed 
on eCos users, pissing off the entire eCos community in one fell swoop 
isn't exactly likely to be part of the agenda :-) (and I wouldn't be here 
if it was even considered!). If the maintainers collectively decide on a 
different course of action eCosCentric would abide by that. Thinking about 
it, it's arguably safer for eCosCentric to do it as eCosCentric has face 
to lose, meaning lost business, whereas an individual maintainer could 
theoretically start setting nasty preconditions and having the rest of the 
maintainers over a barrel. But that's probably academic as we all have 
code copyright ourselves in the code base anyway so there'd be problems 
whatever.

>>To be clear, this isn't an attempt to take over :-). All your eCos do not 
>>belong to us :).  As such, if any other maintainer wants to accept 
>>assignments (and put up their mail, phone, fax details on the web, mail 
>>back executed assignment, etc.etc.) then we can easily list more than one 
>>option to contact on the website.
> 
> 
> No thanks. I don't have the resources, willingness etc....

I'm not expecting anyone else to, and there's no real need to as we're 
prepared to do it all... but I want to give people the chance in order to 
show that all we want is the solution, and eCosCentric's, or individual 
maintainers', part in it is just a means to an end.

> One other thing comes to mind. It can be hard for some people to get
> the PHB to sign the assignment. Having to get first an eCosCentric one
> and then an FSF one signed will be double trouble. Maybe something can
> be added to the eCosCentric one so that it can act as an automatic
> forwarder to FSF once they are up an running. Signing the FSF
> assignment then becomes optional for people with an eCosCentric
> assignment.

That might be okay. Although a direct assignment would be preferable 
obviously. We'd need to check with the FSF lawyers as and when this 
becomes an issue.

Similarly I don't expect people with RH assignments to have to switch over 
overnight; although a final deadline may be wise, but again we'll deal 
with that when the time comes.

Jifl
-- 
eCosCentric    http://www.eCosCentric.com/    The eCos and RedBoot experts
--["No sense being pessimistic, it wouldn't work anyway"]-- Opinions==mine

Re: Way forward with FSF

[Gary Thomas]

Jonathan Larmour said:
> Us guys at eCosCentric have been thinking a little about ways to move
> forward with the FSF. I have just prodded the FSF again, in a slightly
> more forceful way. I can imagine the SCO stuff is taking up their time
> which won't help.
>
> At the same time, there seems to be evidence that RH are sitting on
> assignments, although one has just come through just now. How many others
> are affected? I seem to recall at least one.
>
> A compromise has been suggested that won't cause problems with the FSF
> later, but will make us more independent of RH (which as we know stops
> some people from contributing). However it needs the buy-in from everyone,
> naturally.
>
> The idea is that instead of assigning to RH, contributors could assign
> direct to individual maintainers. When the FSF is sorted out, the
> individual maintainer(s) will assign everything at that point to the FSF.
> Another possibility is to assign to eCosCentric, and eCosCentric would
> make a public commitment to assign to the FSF immediately once everything
> is going. That might be easier logistically, but I can understand it if
> others here are hesitant about this. But the public commitment may address
> this.
>
> Certainly of the eCosCentric maintainers (me, Bart, Nick, John), we are
> able to at least offer eCosCentric's facilities: mail, phone, fax, etc.
> and are prepared to deal with the admin overhead of doing so. If this
> becomes new policy we'll want new assignments from existing contributors
> so there'll be quite a few to deal with, at least at first.
>
> To be clear, this isn't an attempt to take over :-). All your eCos do not
> belong to us :).  As such, if any other maintainer wants to accept
> assignments (and put up their mail, phone, fax details on the web, mail
> back executed assignment, etc.etc.) then we can easily list more than one
> option to contact on the website. Although in that case, if someone opts
> for that option, they should take care they do not have something in their
> own employment contract that will mean all the IP assigned to them goes to
> their employer! Mark and Andrew would probably be affected by this.
>
> Also, in the case of Andrew, it would probably be advisable to explicitly
> write to RH legal to "cancel" your assignment. For Mark, I guess until the
> FSF arrangement is set up, its probably least problematic to continue
> allowing RH copyright contributions.
>
> Or if people aren't happy with this suggestion, we can just maintain the
> status quo until the FSF is sorted out. We're just looking for a
> constructive way forward. If people want to just wait until the FSF
> resolved since, of course, it should be Real Soon Now, then it may not be
> worth the effort putting this temporary compromise in place. I would like
> to hope this would be the case, but also want to cut our losses.
>
> Thoughts?

Since there doesn't seem to be any timetable for the FSF to move, I think
it behooves us to go ahead with this plan(*).  I am OK with eCosCentric being
the center point (I'm like Andrew and don't have the inclination or resources
to take this on).

(*) Right now, I think the community thinks of this as a major stumble and
that our current approach of waiting for the FSF is growing stale.  At least
this way, it'll look like we are interested in the integrity of the codebase
while still accepting new work (and the RH assignment is surely an impediment
for some contributors).  When this is announced, it must be made very clear
that it is an interim solution, chosen only to keep the project/codebase
alive while waiting for the FSF.

Re: Way forward with FSF

[Andrew Lunn]

> The idea is that instead of assigning to RH, contributors could assign 
> direct to individual maintainers. When the FSF is sorted out, the 
> individual maintainer(s) will assign everything at that point to the FSF. 
> Another possibility is to assign to eCosCentric, and eCosCentric would 
> make a public commitment to assign to the FSF immediately once everything 
> is going. That might be easier logistically, but I can understand it if 
> others here are hesitant about this. But the public commitment may address 
> this.

When you say "...assign direct to individual maintainers", do you mean
one named person, or the maintainers as a whole? Could eCosCentric
handle the paperwork, but the assignments be to the maintainers as a
whole? That gives a degree of separation from eCosCentric which might
make some people happier.

     Andrew

Re: Way forward with FSF

[Andrew Lunn]

> >I suppose we should also consider what happens if it all falls through
> >with FSF. They change there mind, or say they don't have the resources
> >needed to sort this out until this SCO thing is sorted out, they go
> >bankrupt paying legal fees, get burnt down in a bush fire,... The
> >assignments are then in limbo, being held by eCosCentric waiting to be
> >tranferred to somewhere they cannot go.
> 
> I see your point, but I don't think we really have many alternatives. The 
> public commitment isn't a legal thing, but since eCosCentric is focussed 
> on eCos users, pissing off the entire eCos community in one fell swoop 
> isn't exactly likely to be part of the agenda :-) (and I wouldn't be here 
> if it was even considered!). If the maintainers collectively decide on a 
> different course of action eCosCentric would abide by that.

I'd say this needs publically stating as part of the agreement to
forward to FSF. Its the obvious question people will ask when
considering why we are doing this intermediate solution. There is no
guarantee it will all be sorted out with FSF and people want to know
what happens then. 

     Andrew

Re: Way forward with FSF

[Jonathan Larmour]

Andrew Lunn wrote:
>>The idea is that instead of assigning to RH, contributors could assign 
>>direct to individual maintainers. When the FSF is sorted out, the 
>>individual maintainer(s) will assign everything at that point to the FSF. 
>>Another possibility is to assign to eCosCentric, and eCosCentric would 
>>make a public commitment to assign to the FSF immediately once everything 
>>is going. That might be easier logistically, but I can understand it if 
>>others here are hesitant about this. But the public commitment may address 
>>this.
> 
> 
> When you say "...assign direct to individual maintainers", do you mean
> one named person, or the maintainers as a whole? Could eCosCentric
> handle the paperwork, but the assignments be to the maintainers as a
> whole? That gives a degree of separation from eCosCentric which might
> make some people happier.

It either has to be named individuals or eCosCentric. There is no other 
legal entity to assign to, and it has to be a legal entity.

Jifl
-- 
eCosCentric    http://www.eCosCentric.com/    The eCos and RedBoot experts
--["No sense being pessimistic, it wouldn't work anyway"]-- Opinions==mine

Re: Way forward with FSF

[Jonathan Larmour]

Andrew Lunn wrote:
>>>I suppose we should also consider what happens if it all falls through
>>>with FSF. They change there mind, or say they don't have the resources
>>>needed to sort this out until this SCO thing is sorted out, they go
>>>bankrupt paying legal fees, get burnt down in a bush fire,... The
>>>assignments are then in limbo, being held by eCosCentric waiting to be
>>>tranferred to somewhere they cannot go.
>>
>>I see your point, but I don't think we really have many alternatives. The 
>>public commitment isn't a legal thing, but since eCosCentric is focussed 
>>on eCos users, pissing off the entire eCos community in one fell swoop 
>>isn't exactly likely to be part of the agenda :-) (and I wouldn't be here 
>>if it was even considered!). If the maintainers collectively decide on a 
>>different course of action eCosCentric would abide by that.
> 
> 
> I'd say this needs publically stating as part of the agreement to
> forward to FSF. Its the obvious question people will ask when
> considering why we are doing this intermediate solution. There is no
> guarantee it will all be sorted out with FSF and people want to know
> what happens then. 

Sure. It's also publically archived on this list :).

Jifl
-- 
eCosCentric    http://www.eCosCentric.com/    The eCos and RedBoot experts
--["No sense being pessimistic, it wouldn't work anyway"]-- Opinions==mine

Re: Way forward with FSF

[Jonathan Larmour]

Gary Thomas wrote:
> Since there doesn't seem to be any timetable for the FSF to move, I think
> it behooves us to go ahead with this plan(*).  I am OK with eCosCentric being
> the center point (I'm like Andrew and don't have the inclination or resources
> to take this on).

Great. I'll give Mark a little more time to chime in, but otherwise it 
looks pretty promising.

> (*) Right now, I think the community thinks of this as a major stumble and
> that our current approach of waiting for the FSF is growing stale.  At least
> this way, it'll look like we are interested in the integrity of the codebase
> while still accepting new work (and the RH assignment is surely an impediment
> for some contributors).  When this is announced, it must be made very clear
> that it is an interim solution, chosen only to keep the project/codebase
> alive while waiting for the FSF.

Absolutely. And the instant the FSF wakes up and we reach agreement, 
everything would get transferred, no delays, ifs or buts.

Jifl
-- 
eCosCentric    http://www.eCosCentric.com/    The eCos and RedBoot experts
--["No sense being pessimistic, it wouldn't work anyway"]-- Opinions==mine