From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21042 invoked by alias); 2 Jan 2005 17:21:25 -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 21030 invoked from network); 2 Jan 2005 17:21:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO jifvik.dyndns.org) (81.104.194.28) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 2 Jan 2005 17:21:19 -0000 Received: from jifvik.org (garibaldi.jifvik.org [172.31.1.2]) by jifvik.dyndns.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 126FE40C03; Sun, 2 Jan 2005 17:20:52 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <41D82D73.4000704@jifvik.org> Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 17:21:00 -0000 From: Jonathan Larmour User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-GB; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030703 X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: eCos Maintainers Cc: Alex Schuilenburg Subject: RH Response Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2005-01/txt/msg00002.txt.bz2 [ 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 To: Jonathan Larmour 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