This is the mail archive of the ecos-maintainers@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the eCos project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Copyright resolution


The time has come to bring this to a conclusion. The beta is now out, and we want this to be resolved for 2.0 final.

I gave Red Hat repeated reminders and finally a deadline of last week to give a response to the mail I had sent (which you've all seen). But there was no answer.

At FOSDEM I talked to Martin Michlmayer about SPI and copyright assignments and stuff, and from that I found out that despite my very explicit statements in almost all my mails, it is almost certain they unfortunately didn't quite understand our proposal with licensing opt-outs. Martin's view from knowing the individuals on the SPI board (he doesn't speak for SPI so this *isn't* a definitive SPI response though) is that many of them would be deeply against such license opt-outs.

Add to that that SPI are only now even _considering_ how to deal with copyright assignments (although admittedly we were only proposing before them delegating the paperwork to us), and that their approach in general, while well-intentioned, is unfortunately.... er... amateurish, I don't believe any chance of license deals between Red Hat and SPI is plausible.

So as I see it, and from what y'all have already indicated preferences for, there are essentially two conclusions:

a) Create our own "eCos Foundation" whether not-for-profit or otherwise, and possibly then try to do a deal with Red Hat.;
or
b) Drop the copyright assignment requirement for patches entirely.


There are many advantages to a). Reducing the number of copyright holders to at most two means licence enforcement becomes easier, along with the possibility of deals resulting in potential improvements for the eCos community. Maintaining copyright assignments (and corporate disclaimers) also adds legal security against risks to the integrity of the IP, primarily whether someone was actually entitled to give us the code.

Against a) is the burden of doing copyright assignments, and that setting up and running such a foundation has adminstrative and bureaucratic overheads. But also key new factors to consider are that Red Hat have been unfortunately unresponsive at this stage, so how could we ever manage to do deals with potential "customers" in future, where negotiation time is limited if this would be standard practice? Also, from FOSDEM, although the audience wasn't very representative of wider industry, being intrinsically more free software oriented, no-one would foresee a great demand for the license opt-outs anyway - people seemed happy with the GPL+exception.

For b) is losing the burden of assignments, and the stalls for submissions it causes etc. Against b) is the risk of loss of IP integrity, increased difficulty of enforcement, and that this step is *irrevocable*. Once we go down this route we're stuck with the decision forever. And that includes keeping the existing GPL+exception forever, even if it is found down the road to be legally flawed.

It seems to me that the idea of license opt-outs etc. is dead, one way or the other. The only issue really to consider is the integrity of the IP, defending against potential lawsuits, patents (EU software patents are unfortunately probably round the corner :-( ), and enforcing the eCos licence among users. Some people hold up the Linux kernel as an example of how it can work; others hold up the Linux kernel as an accident waiting to happen, and with many grey areas just begging to be tried out in court such as whether the GPL affects modules, and Linus's unilateral change of the licence.

One great consideration the maintainers have to reflect on is that *we* can easily divest ourselves of troublesome patches if they turned out to have legal problems. However we have a responsibility to eCos users, and many of them may have used such patches in their products, and recalling a million MP3 players or something or pay royalties/face a lawsuit is not something we would ever want for users.

One of the big concerns I had was that it is standard operating practice for software companies to insist that they own everything their employees write. This would mean that the person contributing the code is _not_ the entity who owns it; which means that entity can later turn round and say "that's mine - remove it or face lawsuit, and if you've used it in products pay us royalties". This type of clause in employment contracts is so common it can't be ignored.

A compromise suggested in the maintainers meeting in Belgium was a sort of half way house... all contributors could electronically submit a form that explicitly says that they owned the code and they have checked their employment contract and their employer doesn't own it. If their employer does own their code, then they must send us (via some PO box we set up) the company disclaimer from http://sources.redhat.com/ecos/assign.html. So not the assignment itself, but the disclaimer that usually goes with it. This may well hit many people, but gives us a degree of legal safety. After all, if the contributor doesn't own the code, it would definitely be wrong to accept it.

Personally I don't think I could even _consider_ accepting option b) unless we added this policy (the corollary being that we would be prepared to accept code that inevitably sometimes must be owned by employers, not contributors). However, if such clauses in employment contracts are as pervasive as I think they may well be, one could easily argue that we may as well just keep the assignments.

So we need to get a conclusion. I've made a few assumptions above, but if anyone disagrees please do say. Similarly, if people think we should be considering other options, say so too.

I would like to hear from every maintainer in this thread. Unless we get complete consensus, I would suggest thrashing things out here a little, and then setting up a phone conference to reach the conclusion.

I won't say what my favoured personal preference is until tomorrow as I want to prevent this post appearing biased :-P.

What I would say is that if Red Hat presented the option of assigning all their copyright to a _single_ not-for-profit entity on a plate, I'd go for that. But that's safe to say since it isn't an option :-) :-(.

Jifl
--
eCosCentric    http://www.eCosCentric.com/    The eCos and RedBoot experts
--[ "You can complain because roses have thorns, or you ]--
--[  can rejoice because thorns have roses." -Lincoln   ]-- Opinions==mine


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]