* Re: NAND support
2009-05-05 13:55 ` NAND support John Dallaway
@ 2009-05-05 23:12 ` Ricky Zheng
2009-05-08 12:53 ` Jonathan Larmour
1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Ricky Zheng @ 2009-05-05 23:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: John Dallaway; +Cc: Simon Kallweit, Jonathan Larmour, eCos Maintainers
John Dallaway wrote:
> [ moving to the ecos-maintainers list ]
>
> Hi Simon, Ricky and Jifl
>
> Simon Kallweit wrote:
>
>
>> John Dallaway wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Note also that every individual who has made a significant contribution
>>> to the UFFS code would be required to sign a copyright assignment for
>>> acceptance of the code into the eCos repository. Not just the original
>>> author.
>>>
>> He is the only author so far, and applied for the FSF assignment right
>> away. I'm not the guru when it comes to licenses, but I think he would
>> like to have UFFS on a dual license, an eCos license and a separate LGPL
>> version for the current users to continue with. Is there a problem with
>> this?
>>
>
> Dual licensing _might_ be a problem because only the copyright holder
> can decide how to license the code. If the copyright assignment to the
> FSF has not already been made then I would suggest that Ricky delays
> copyright assignment until we have a firm plan of action.
>
> Ricky, could you clarify whether copyright in the UFFS sources has
> already been assigned to the FSF?
>
I've got reply from FSF:
"Thanks for your interest in contributing to free software. The Free
Software Foundation only takes assignment on code that is becoming a
part of the GNU project..."
So no, it hasn't been assigned to the FSF.
Best regards,
Ricky.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: NAND support
2009-05-05 13:55 ` NAND support John Dallaway
2009-05-05 23:12 ` Ricky Zheng
@ 2009-05-08 12:53 ` Jonathan Larmour
2009-05-08 14:51 ` John Dallaway
1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jonathan Larmour @ 2009-05-08 12:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: John Dallaway; +Cc: Simon Kallweit, Ricky Zheng, eCos Maintainers
John Dallaway wrote:
> Simon Kallweit wrote:
>>He is the only author so far, and applied for the FSF assignment right
>>away. I'm not the guru when it comes to licenses, but I think he would
>>like to have UFFS on a dual license, an eCos license and a separate LGPL
>>version for the current users to continue with. Is there a problem with
>>this?
>
> Dual licensing _might_ be a problem because only the copyright holder
> can decide how to license the code. If the copyright assignment to the
> FSF has not already been made then I would suggest that Ricky delays
> copyright assignment until we have a firm plan of action.
>
> Ricky, could you clarify whether copyright in the UFFS sources has
> already been assigned to the FSF?
>
> Jifl, can you also advise here please? Could dual licensing of UFFS
> under both LGPL and the eCos Public License be achieved with a single
> source base using a single license banner?
Both these licences are acceptable to the FSF, so I can't see any issue
with it.
There's then the matter of how to achieve this. Here's my recommendation
of how to modify the banner:
// ####UFFSCOPYRIGHTBEGIN####
// -------------------------------------------
// This file is part of UFFS, the Ultra-low-cost Flash File System.
// Copyright (C) 200x, 200y Free Software Foundation, Inc.
//
// UFFS is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under
// the terms of either:
// a) the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software
// Foundation, either version 2 or (at your option) any later
// version; or
// b) the GNU Library General Public License as published by the Free
// Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your
// option) any later version.
//
// UFFS is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT
// ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or
// FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License
// or GNU Library General Public License, as applicable, for more details.
//
// You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
// and GNU Library General Public License along with UFFS; if not, write
// to the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor,
// Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA.
//
// If using UFFS under license option (a), then the following special
// exception applies:
// As a special exception, if other files instantiate templates or use
// macros or inline functions from this file, or you compile this file
// and link it with other works to produce a work based on this file,
// this file does not by itself cause the resulting work to be covered
// by the GNU General Public License. However the source code for this
// file must still be made available in accordance with section (3) of
// the GNU General Public License v2.
//
// This exception does not invalidate any other reasons why a work based
// on this file might be covered by the GNU General Public License.
// -------------------------------------------
// ####UFFSCOPYRIGHTEND####
NB, notice the indentation I have applied to the exception text, and the
altered copyright banner markers.
You should also add COPYING.LIB for LGPL v2 to the top of the UFFS package.
I haven't been following things, but there may be a source of naming
confusion with another UFFS (Unified FFS). Something to think about.
Jifl
--
eCosCentric Limited http://www.eCosCentric.com/ The eCos experts
Barnwell House, Barnwell Drive, Cambridge, UK. Tel: +44 1223 245571
Registered in England and Wales: Reg No 4422071.
------["The best things in life aren't things."]------ Opinions==mine
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread