From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29144 invoked by alias); 29 Dec 2004 00:35:24 -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 29095 invoked from network); 29 Dec 2004 00:35:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO perdition2.onetel.net.uk) (212.67.120.102) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 29 Dec 2004 00:35:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 24874 invoked from network); 28 Dec 2004 23:47:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.schuilenburg.org) (213.78.77.109) by perd2 with SMTP; 28 Dec 2004 23:47:44 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (simply.schuilenburg.org [172.31.12.3]) by smtp.schuilenburg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 826F25A7A6; Wed, 29 Dec 2004 00:35:14 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <41D1FBC1.4010606@ecoscentric.com> Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 00:35:00 -0000 From: Alex Schuilenburg Organization: eCosCentric Limited User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Lunn Cc: eCos Maintainers Subject: Re: [ECOS] Status of eCos copyright assignments to the FSF? References: <20041228190707.GD8819@lunn.ch> In-Reply-To: <20041228190707.GD8819@lunn.ch> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.89.5.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-12/txt/msg00016.txt.bz2 Andrew Lunn wrote: [...] >>We are still waiting for RedHat to make good on their promise to >>assign there parts of eCos to the FSF. It is nearly a year since they >>made their press release about doing this..... > > > Hi Jifl > > I think its about time we officialy told RedHat about our counter > press release we will make on 13th Jan 2005. We should give them a > fair chance to actually make the transfer. I expect they unofficially > know what is coming, i expect somebody in Redhat is reading > ecos-maintainers and has seen the discussion we had at the beginning > of the month. So two weeks notice does not seem too unreasonable. > > Andrew I honestly do not believe that threatening Red Hat with bad press will achieve anything other than annoy them and strongly urge the maintainers to reconsider this course of action. You do not know their reasons for the delay and Red Hat have flip-flopped and suffered far worse press than this. You need Red Hat on your side and this is not the way to go about it. Since email contact with Red Hat legal has so far failed, and jifl has failed to get hold of them via telephone, both Paul and I are happy to engage Red Hat legal once again to pursue this matter with the maintainers blessing. Failing that, I suggest that you rather draft an open letter (sent registered) to both Red Hat and the FSF and formally ask them about the status of Red Hat's transfer and to set a date so that the copyrights held privately by the maintainers and by eCosCentric can simultaneously be transferred with Red Hat's copyright to the FSF. Knowing Red Hat and the FSF, two months out is a more realistic date than two weeks (which can easily catch the relevant person on vacation). -- Alex Managing Director / CEO eCosCentric Limited http://www.ecoscentric.com/ The eCos and RedBoot experts