Re: [ECOS] Status of eCos copyright assignments to the FSF?

[Jonathan Larmour <jifl@eCosCentric.com>]

Alex Schuilenburg wrote:
> Andrew Lunn wrote:
>> 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.

I will again send mail to Mark Webbink on this, setting this out more 
forcefully. If he replies soon enough, then that is at least a sign of 
good intent and we can potentially be more flexible even though the thing 
won't be done and dusted by then.

> 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,

It's true that I would at least like to make contact before Dropping The Bomb.

> both Paul and I are happy to 
> engage Red Hat legal once again to pursue this matter with the 
> maintainers blessing.

I would prefer not to do that - this should come from the maintainers.

> 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.

You may not be aware, but there is an outstanding issue with even the FSF 
assignment. One which we have an agreement in principle about, but not in 
practice.This is a publicised guarantee that the FSF understands the 
purpose of and reasoning behind the existing eCos license and will not 
seek to "restrict" it (e.g. by switching to full GPL) without consultation 
with the eCos maintainers.

> 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).

They've had a year already!

Jifl
-- 
--[ "You can complain because roses have thorns, or you ]--
--[  can rejoice because thorns have roses." -Lincoln   ]-- Opinions==mine