Re: [ECOS] Who's maintaining CVS

[Jonathan Larmour <jifl at eCosCentric dot com>]

Jani Monoses wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> So if the ecos specific parts were included in the lwIP project
>>> would there be no problems?
>>
>> Assuming it is a natural part of lwIP. It doesn't make any difference
>> to do stuff like add a patch to eCos as a file inside lwIP. Or put a
>> package inside lwIP and say "copy this to your eCos tree" or
>> whatever. Just because it's policy doesn't mean we're stupid about
>> these things ;-P.
>
>
> 'natural part' I see. I was just trying to understand what you mean by
>  the other projects responsability.Well lwIP already has 3 arch
> specific subdirs and ecos could well be one of them.But I did not
> exactly understand your paragraph above.Is it a yes or a no ;) ?

It's an "It depends" :-).

>>> What if I fork lwIP and put all my changes under the same
>>> copyright? Would that count as an 'established project'?
>>
>> Now you're really just trying to work around the letter of the
>> policy, rather than the spirit.
>
> Of course I am because the letter is what lawyers look at :)

Good point :-). But it's not the policy itself that we might be held
accountable for in future!

>> It's nothing to do with Red Hat as such. It's a matter of policy. The
>> more policy gets abused, the more exceptions exist. The more
>> exceptions exist, the more chance there is a weakness in the legal
>> integrity of the code base.
>
> But why is this policy necessary for ecos when most open source
> projects can well do without it?

No FSF ones do! The same is true for many other projects. I know it's not 
what is proposed here, but take a more extreme example, people have been 
pointing out for years the legal frailties of the Linux kernel, which is a 
free for all. Including things like Linus changing the licence without 
getting the explicit consent of all copyright holders.

>I am not saying it's not necessary but
> really ask: why?

Legal integrity. If we screw up on this *as a matter of policy* we could 
have a situation in future where a mistake happens and suddenly the eCos 
community and users have code in their possession that they _think_ they 
can use, but in fact is "owned" by someone who doesn't want it under the 
GPL. If that code was used, it could potentially result in a lawsuit 
against eCos users; perhaps even accusations of theft or "possession of 
stolen goods" or whatever even if it isn't used. We cannot risk users 
being placed in that position ever.

To be honest, I'm willing to believe that there would never be a problem 
with any contribution *you* make, and you'd never object if, in future, we 
changed the licence (would you?). But what about the next guy? Why doesn't 
that argument apply to them? Why can't they have the same opt out. That's 
what policy is there for.

> Thanks for trying to make me see the light :)

Perhaps it'd be easier for me to pay for a stamp and envelope for you 
rather than keep on at this ;-).

Jifl
--
--[ "You can complain because roses have thorns, or you ]--
--[  can rejoice because thorns have roses." -Lincoln   ]-- Opinions==mine


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