This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the eCos project.
Re: [ECOS] Re: eCosCentric copyright hold in headers
- From: Alex Schuilenburg <alexs at ecoscentric dot com>
- To: Jonathan Larmour <jifl at eCosCentric dot com>
- Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew at lunn dot ch>, eCos Maintainers <ecos-maintainers at ecos dot sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 15:51:14 +0100
- Subject: Re: [ECOS] Re: eCosCentric copyright hold in headers
- Organization: eCosCentric Limited
- References: <20040408101602.GJ29940@lunn.ch> <4075305D.8020101@eCosCentric.com> <20040408111939.GK29940@lunn.ch> <407556D4.firstname.lastname@example.org> <40755B58.30905@eCosCentric.com>
Jonathan Larmour wrote:
We could offer to do the changes for them but would need legal-sign
off from someone in Red Hat for all the files that would have their
copyright changed. If we are going to help make this happen, I
suggest we provide Red Hat with a list of all the eCos files for which
they hold copyright and have them approve the list (in writing). We
can then make the copyright changes and assignments to the FSF
(including eCosCentric and other maintainer held copyrights) in one
go, which would make a lot of sense.
I'd have hoped we wouldn't have to be responsible for that. While we
could search for the copyright banner in files, I can't guarantee every
file contains a Red Hat copyright that should have (even from the days
when we^H^HRed Hat were working on eCos). And for the files without a
Red Hat copyright banner, it would need careful identification to work
out whether they are Red Hat's or someone elses (or indeed are mostly
someone elses but may contain portions of RH code thus making it a
derived work). The consequences of us making a mistake with the
identification is painful; but if Red Hat makes the mistake it's nowhere
near as bad and I believe intent does matter a lot in these circumstances.
Hmmm, this is of concern. I thought all of eCos could be attributed to
either Red Hat, eCosCentric or one of the maintainers. Are you saying
that there are files that are not copyright one of the above?
If there are files that do not have a copyright banner from their owner
(Red Hat or otherwise), then would you also not have to get consent from
the owners also on the assignment to the FSF.
It would be much much nicer if Red Hat could arrange some sort of
blanket assignment, perhaps just by reference to the contents of the
entire eCos CVS repository at ecos.sourceware.org. Or perhaps just list
every repository file, irrespective of copyright and finetune the
wording of the assignment so that it assigns any right and title that
_may_ belong to Red Hat in the listed files. I'm no lawyer though. I'd
be more than willing to talk to them about ways it could be done
though..... if they'll talk to me!
IMHO this is not going to happen unless somebody outside Red Hat drives
this. I suggest getting a draft together for all maintainers, Red Hat
and eCosCentric representatives to sign that simply states that they
assign copyright to all the files for which they may hold copyright in
the ecos CVS repository to the FSF.
Come to think of it, my previous suggestion of listing the files is not
a good idea as there is no guarantee that the list will not change while
we are waiting for signature. You will have to freeze contribs while
waiting for signatures which will be could be forever in the case of Red
We could approach Red Hat with a formal written offer to do this so that
the assignment to the FSF which they announced can actually take place.
If you want help from me, let me know.