Re: [ECOS] Who's maintaining CVS

[Jani Monoses <jani at iv dot ro>]

> Jani, is there any way we can convince you otherwise?  I cannot
> send in my copyright assignment in good faith because I submitted
> your at49xxxx flash driver.  If you do not want to turn over
> copyright assignment to Redhat we probably need to pull the
> patch and re-write it from scratch.

But please do submit it in good faith.I cannot claim ownership 
of that code because I modified the at29xxxx sources myself (I guess).
This is what I was talking about and disliking it:because of
some silly paperwork some would end up rewriting a patch even if it
is GPLed based on other GPLed work which in most opensource projects is
enough.It slows down the growth of ecos and if RH no longer cares about ecos
and instead it only focuses on embedded linux I guess it's good for them
I hope I am wrong though.
The same way I cannot sign such an assignment in good faith for lwIP because
it's a port and 95% of it is not mine.It's BSD licensed work of Adam Dunkels.

What prevents RH for instance from suing somebody forusing eCos?
User:-"But.. but.. but.. the site said it's GPL-ed...free download... open source"
RH(grinning): "Did we sign anything?"
IANAL but as the situation above is unrealistic and absurd the same goes for 
a company making a fool of itself by trying to sue RH for including GPL-ed 
code in eCos.

Again if Gary or somebody at RH can think of a solution for licensing the code
so that it complies with eCos OK,but I am not going to DHL a legal paper overseas
which is probably longer than the code I contributed.

What if code started showing up on an anonymous ftp sites and being public domain
authored by King Kong according to the readme?Would nobody use it fearing the revenge of
the monkeys or what?
I'll stop because I'm off topic.





-- 
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://sources.redhat.com/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/ecos-discuss