Re: Update jffs2 from public MTD

Re: Update jffs2 from public MTD

[Jonathan Larmour]

Andrew Lunn wrote:
> Index: fs/jffs2/current/src/compr.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/ecos/ecos/packages/fs/jffs2/current/src/compr.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.6
> diff -u -r1.6 compr.c
> --- fs/jffs2/current/src/compr.c	1 Apr 2004 03:17:57 -0000	1.6
> +++ fs/jffs2/current/src/compr.c	12 Aug 2004 21:29:23 -0000
> @@ -2,32 +2,39 @@
>   * JFFS2 -- Journalling Flash File System, Version 2.
>   *
>   * Copyright (C) 2001-2003 Red Hat, Inc.
> - *
>   * Created by Arjan van de Ven <arjanv@redhat.com>
>   *
> + * Copyright (C) 2004 Ferenc Havasi <havasi@inf.u-szeged.hu>,
> + *                    University of Szeged, Hungary
> + *

Erk, this is slightly unexpected. IIRC JFFS2 isn't one of the things on the 
list to be assigned by RH (goodness knows when at the current rate) to the 
FSF (correct me if I'm misremembering!). But even so, it's an.... 
interesting development if copyright is to be shared liberally in future 
and RH isn't going to be getting assignments for JFFS2 patches.

David, is this what JFFS2's policy for contributions now is? Or is this 
just something in progress?

For example if eCos ever changes licence in the future, which is always a 
possibility (I'm always fearful someone will find a workaround for the eCos 
exception and we'll need to tighten the wording), then JFFS2 wouldn't be 
able to change.

I'm not sure how much (if anything) of a problem this is, but we'd better 
make sure we all know what the future status is going to be.

If we decide it is a problem, we could reverse this change and not import 
any further JFFS2 code, but that does seem overkill.

Or more likely just put up with it, and deal with the consequences down the 
road if we have to change licence and find that we can only use JFFS2 under 
the full GPL.

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

Re: Update jffs2 from public MTD

[Jonathan Larmour]

Jonathan Larmour wrote:
> Andrew Lunn wrote:
> 
>> Index: fs/jffs2/current/src/compr.c
>> ===================================================================
>> RCS file: /cvs/ecos/ecos/packages/fs/jffs2/current/src/compr.c,v
>> retrieving revision 1.6
>> diff -u -r1.6 compr.c
>> --- fs/jffs2/current/src/compr.c    1 Apr 2004 03:17:57 -0000    1.6
>> +++ fs/jffs2/current/src/compr.c    12 Aug 2004 21:29:23 -0000
>> @@ -2,32 +2,39 @@
>>   * JFFS2 -- Journalling Flash File System, Version 2.
>>   *
>>   * Copyright (C) 2001-2003 Red Hat, Inc.
>> - *
>>   * Created by Arjan van de Ven <arjanv@redhat.com>
>>   *
>> + * Copyright (C) 2004 Ferenc Havasi <havasi@inf.u-szeged.hu>,
>> + *                    University of Szeged, Hungary
>> + *
> 
> 
> Erk, this is slightly unexpected. IIRC JFFS2 isn't one of the things on 
> the list to be assigned by RH (goodness knows when at the current rate) 
> to the FSF (correct me if I'm misremembering!). But even so, it's an.... 
> interesting development if copyright is to be shared liberally in future 
> and RH isn't going to be getting assignments for JFFS2 patches.
>
> David, is this what JFFS2's policy for contributions now is? Or is this 
> just something in progress?

Bart's just been telling me that he remembers David saying in the pub about 
future JFFS2 contribs not being assigned. Sorry if I've forgotten that. So 
is that still the case?

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

Re: Update jffs2 from public MTD

[David Woodhouse]

On Fri, 2004-08-13 at 13:30 +0100, Jonathan Larmour wrote:
> Bart's just been telling me that he remembers David saying in the pub about 
> future JFFS2 contribs not being assigned. Sorry if I've forgotten that. So 
> is that still the case?

Please don't use my @redhat.com address. Use the address which is run
competently. I've only just received this mail -- in fact I've only just
received all mail sent to dwmw2@redhat.com in the last couple of weeks.

You are correct -- since Red Hat IS pulled the plug on my servers
without giving me even enough time to wind down the DNS expiry and move
them to a new home, I stopped requiring copyright assignment. They no
longer own CVS JFFS2.

-- 
dwmw2

Re: Update jffs2 from public MTD

[Andrew Lunn]

On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 10:51:42AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-08-13 at 13:30 +0100, Jonathan Larmour wrote:
> > Bart's just been telling me that he remembers David saying in the pub about 
> > future JFFS2 contribs not being assigned. Sorry if I've forgotten that. So 
> > is that still the case?

[..]
 
> You are correct -- since Red Hat IS pulled the plug on my servers
> without giving me even enough time to wind down the DNS expiry and move
> them to a new home, I stopped requiring copyright assignment. They no
> longer own CVS JFFS2.

Hi David

One thing to consider is maybe trying to get RedHat to contribute the
parts it owns to FSF when it transfers eCos. Would you be interested
in that? Would you be willing to require FSF copyright assingments for
jffs2?

Its something that must be acted on quickly if you think this is a
good idea. We would have to get assignments for the recent changes
which are not owned by RedHat. 

      Andrew

Re: Update jffs2 from public MTD

[David Woodhouse]

On Wed, 2004-08-18 at 12:17 +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> One thing to consider is maybe trying to get RedHat to contribute the
> parts it owns to FSF when it transfers eCos. Would you be interested
> in that? Would you be willing to require FSF copyright assingments for
> jffs2?

That works for me. In fact when I told Red Hat I was no longer going to
collect copyright assignments for them for JFFS2, I had already
suggested they might as well assign it to the FSF too, and I think they
agreed. 

I'm not averse to collecting assignments to the FSF.

-- 
dwmw2

Re: Update jffs2 from public MTD

[Jonathan Larmour]

David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-08-18 at 12:17 +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> 
>>One thing to consider is maybe trying to get RedHat to contribute the
>>parts it owns to FSF when it transfers eCos. Would you be interested
>>in that? Would you be willing to require FSF copyright assingments for
>>jffs2?
> 
> 
> That works for me. In fact when I told Red Hat I was no longer going to
> collect copyright assignments for them for JFFS2, I had already
> suggested they might as well assign it to the FSF too, and I think they
> agreed. 
> 
> I'm not averse to collecting assignments to the FSF.

That's great.

Now the only issue is getting Webbink to make the assignment. Until then 
you can't get the assignment from Ferenc Havasi (unless you and he don't 
mind him assigning to eCosCentric first, and we'll assign to the FSF later 
as with all the other eCos contribs currently). The reason is that the FSF 
won't accept any other assignments until it's officially adopted, which 
won't happen till the RH copyright is assigned.

I suppose it might be an opportunity for you to fire an e-mail off to 
Webbink reminding/confirming that JFFS2 can be included and asking about 
the status, because we've heard "very soon now" from Webbink for months! 
It's now 8 months since the original announcement.

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