This is the mail archive of the
ecos-maintainers@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the eCos project.
Re: Future code ownership
- From: Gary Thomas <gary at mlbassoc dot com>
- To: Andrew Lunn <andrew dot lunn at ascom dot ch>
- Cc: Jonathan Larmour <jifl at jifvik dot org>,eCos Maintainers <ecos-maintainers at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: 17 Dec 2002 06:47:26 -0700
- Subject: Re: Future code ownership
- References: <3DFDF6B7.8090008@jifvik.org> <20021217092616.GN350@biferten.ma.tech.ascom.ch>
On Tue, 2002-12-17 at 02:26, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > 6) Software in the Public Interest, Inc. is a US not-for-profit
> > organisation. <http://www.spi-inc.org/> Its goals are to advance open
> > source. They are well known already as the copyright holders of many well
> > known projects like Debian Linux, GNOME, LSB as well as owners of the Open
> > Source marque, and so on. They are trusted. We have already taken the
> > step of asking them in principle if they could accept eCos as a project,
> > even with our funky licensing proposal outlined above. And as you can see
> > from
> > <http://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/resolutions/resolution-2002-10-08.mgs>
> > this was accepted.
> >
> > Personally I favour this option. I think it is best for eCos as an Open
> > Source project, and I would like to hope even Red Hat would be able to
> > support it, as it would be in the long-term best interests of eCos.
> > Besides if the licensing proposal does pay off, they would profit!
>
> Has the opinion of RH been sought on this?
>
> To me, this does seem like the best option.
>
Frankly, Red Hat's opinion should not matter. They're the ones
that caused all this ruckus in the first place.
As for me, I think this is the best solution. My main reason
for putting my copyright in files I touch (which I believe matches
those who followed me) was to preclude Red Hat from simply taking
work that I and others had done and selling it to the highest
bidder. [n.b. of course the can still try to do this, but I'm
sure that some lawyer somewhere will stop them] I would have
no problem assigning any new work I contribute to a third party
since this would have the same effect.
As Andrew has asked, how would we actually make such a change?
We can't change Red Hat's copyright notices without their consent.
Or can we get away with just assigning any new work to the SPI?
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Thomas |
MLB Associates | Consulting for the
+1 (970) 229-1963 | Embedded world
http://www.mlbassoc.com/ |
email: <gary@mlbassoc.com> |
gpg: http://www.chez-thomas.org/gary/gpg_key.asc
------------------------------------------------------------