public inbox for
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* 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.


-------- 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: 	<>


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.


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: or the 
> entirely private maintainers list : 
> 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).