From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5966 invoked by alias); 8 Sep 2006 17:03:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 5957 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Sep 2006 17:03:36 -0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from snape.ecoscentric.com (HELO snape.ecoscentric.com) (212.13.207.199) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 08 Sep 2006 17:03:31 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snape.ecoscentric.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B7BF2C013; Fri, 8 Sep 2006 18:03:28 +0100 (BST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ecoscentric.com Received: from snape.ecoscentric.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (snape.ecoscentric.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F1BRILUD1pQ9; Fri, 8 Sep 2006 18:03:26 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <4501A25C.8010704@eCosCentric.com> Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 17:03:00 -0000 From: Jonathan Larmour User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.8-1.1.fc3.4.legacy (X11/20060515) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Lunn CC: eCos Maintainers Subject: Re: FSF status References: <20060908091947.GE25338@lunn.ch> In-Reply-To: <20060908091947.GE25338@lunn.ch> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact ecos-maintainers-help@ecos.sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-maintainers-owner@ecos.sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-09/txt/msg00003.txt.bz2 Andrew Lunn wrote: > Hi Jifl > > Hows it going with FSF? > > Are you still trying to get the eCosCentric copyright assignment > sorted out? Yes it is still waiting on them, allegedly their legal department. The "copyright clerk" Jonas Jacobson replied to me not that long ago seeming to forget much of the thousands of words I have already written to him (much at his own request) and almost bringing things back to square one. He says there are "issues" but then doesn't say what they are. I'm not convinced FSF legal have looked at this at all yet. In my view, I have a clear and minor change suggested to their standard copyright assignment wording, and there has not been any problem mentioned with it, other than the fact it isn't the boiler plate copyright assignment. All in all, I'm moving past "disappointed" to "irritated" in how they're dealing with this. Were it not for eCosCentric's public undertaking to get this stuff assigned, I'd have thrown in the towel on this ages ago. The only reason we can't use their standard assignment template is that it assigns all code in "eCos" which is something eCosCentric cannot be expected to do as eCosCentric develops extensions to eCos which are not to be assigned. You would have thought this would be a simple concept, and one the FSF would have already had to deal with, but it appears not. I reckon there would be some surprised people out there if they found out that if you assign to the FSF, you assign all code you ever write associated with that project, even code you didn't intend to contribute and haven't even told them about. Given that this issue is straightforward and there's nothing secret about it, I don't mind forwarding my past correspondence to any maintainer who wants it, but I wouldn't want to bore (or irritate) anyone with it unless you do. Anyway, I have been back and forward, and my last missive to them was 2006-08-25, to which I am still awaiting a response. Jifl -- eCosCentric http://www.eCosCentric.com/ The eCos and RedBoot experts ------["The best things in life aren't things."]------ Opinions==mine