public inbox for
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Alex Schuilenburg <>
To: Jonathan Larmour <>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <>,
	eCos Maintainers <>
Subject: Re: [ECOS] Status of eCos copyright assignments to the FSF?
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 22:43:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

Jonathan Larmour wrote:
> 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.

IMHO this is not good enough and you are still missing the point. Red 
Hat offered to donate eCos copyrights to the FSF. They still have the 
copyright. You cannot force them to do anything against their will and 
threatening them with bad press is just plain unprofessional. You need 
to get Red Hat on your side and you need their support.

Just consider your actions from their POV. You offer to donate copyright 
assignments and the maintainers start threating you because you are not 
working fast enough to their liking.

I am not making excuses for them, and I agree a year is an 
embarrassingly long time, but trying to impose deadlines is not the 
right way. Rather, try and find out what the delay is and see how you 
can help move things along.

>> 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.

You should not rely on email on something as important as this.  And 
again, please, stop with the threats. They really will mean nothing to 
Red Hat and will do eCos and the maintainers no good at all.

>> 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.

The reason we offered to step in in simply because IMO the maintainers 
are going about this in the wrong way. For starters, the publicising of 
the unprofessional threat just further serves to alienate the 
maintainers from the primary copyright holders.

Have you considered why Red Hat legal have not responded to the 
maintainers so far?

>> 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.

I am aware. This is also why I suggested an open registered letter to 
both. You can ask the reasons for the delay, tell them about your 
frustrations, and most importantly, how you would like to move forward 
and what you would like to see happen.

>> 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!

So what? Red Hat never set out any time period when they would do it in 
their annoucement. What is the problem with any further delay anyway, 
apart from one or two contributions being stalled? AFAIK there is only 
one company (Mind) which has problems contributing temporarily to either 
Red Hat or eCosCentric (despite both public announcements to forward 
their contributions to the FSF, and eCosCentric's public commitment). 
After all, you also worked for Red Hat so you of all people should also 
know how things work internally :-)

We also know that there are additional complications because Red Hat is 
no longer sole copyright holder, and that eCosCentric and the 
maintainers need to sync with Red Hat in contributing copyrights en 
masse to the FSF. So far eCosCentric have been waiting for the call from 
Red Hat and the FSF for assignment of eCosCentric's copyright, but we 
could equally be proactive about this. We could work this in with the 
offer by Paul and myself to contact Red Hat legal.

I can understand your frustrations, but you should not let them get in 
the way of what you want to achieve nor let them alienate you from the 
people you need support from.

-- Alex

  reply	other threads:[~2004-12-31 22:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-12-28 19:07 FWD: " Andrew Lunn
2004-12-29  0:35 ` Alex Schuilenburg
2004-12-31  1:18   ` Jonathan Larmour
2004-12-31 22:43     ` Alex Schuilenburg [this message]
2005-01-02 16:10       ` Jonathan Larmour
2005-01-02 16:43       ` Andrew Lunn
2005-01-03 16:49         ` Alex Schuilenburg

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:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \

* 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).