* RH Response
@ 2005-01-02 17:21 Jonathan Larmour
0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: Jonathan Larmour @ 2005-01-02 17:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: eCos Maintainers; +Cc: Alex Schuilenburg
[ Apologies if this is received twice - first send didn't work because of
HTML attachment ]
Looks like the discussion is now irrelevant, as per the attached message.
Applying just a little more pressure worked!
I will now turn my sights to the FSF.
Jifl
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: eCos copyright assignment to FSF
Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 09:13:34 -0500
From: Mark Webbink <mwebbink@redhat.com>
To: Jonathan Larmour <jifl@jifvik.org>
References: <41D4AD3C.7020009@jifvik.org>
Jonathan,
I discussed this with FSF early in the summre and provided a draft
assignment to which I never received a confirming response (that it was
acceptable). When I didn't hear back from FSF right away, the subject
fell off my radar. I will proceed with executing the document this week
and forwarding it to FSF.
Mark
Jonathan Larmour wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> As per my last mail and my attempts to phone you, the eCos maintainers
> are getting increasingly unhappy about the lack of progress with the
> copyright assignment despite it now being nearly a full calendar year
> from the announcement (and much much longer than that since we started
> down the road of trying to work with the FSF and resolve licensing
> with Red Hat). We want to work with you and help in any way we can, in
> an entirely positive way. But things are starting to drag out longer
> than is sensible.
>
>
> I know the year has been busy for you, and we aren't trying to get
> this all done and dusted in a few days. We would just like some...
> any!... feedback from you on the current status of this, and some
> outline of when we can expect things to be complete. At this time,
> this is all we'd need to believe that Red Hat is going to move forward
> with the public commitment made for which it deservedly earned kudos
> in the wider tech community, slashdot, etc.
>
> If we can't even get a response on this, even if just a very brief
> summary, hopefully taking just a few minutes of your time, then
> understandably we'll be unsure whether Red Hat really is serious, and
> although a decision has not been made, some of the maintainers have
> been suggesting making a public statement on this to make matters
> clear (rather than always having to tell people "watch this space"),
> probably on the 1 year anniversary of Red Hat's press release - 13th
> January. Of course if we can enter into _some_ level of dialog then
> that would make us a lot happier and is trivial to achieve!
>
> Please feel free to reply to either me directly, the publically
> archived maintainers list: ecos-maintainers@ecos.sourceware.org or the
> entirely private maintainers list :
> ecos-maintainers-private@ecoscentric.com
>
> And, again, if there's anything I can do to help or expedite things,
> please let me know. I'm happy to help.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jifl
> eCos maintainer
--
--["No sense being pessimistic, it wouldn't work anyway"]-- Opinions==mine
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] only message in thread
only message in thread, other threads:[~2005-01-02 17:21 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: (only message) (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2005-01-02 17:21 RH Response Jonathan Larmour
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).