This is the mail archive of the ecos-discuss@sourceware.org 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]

Re: Are copyright assignments detrimental to eCos?


On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Gary Thomas <gary@mlbassoc.com> wrote:
> Jiri Gaisler wrote:
>
> > Alex Schuilenburg wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Anyway, nobody is trying to force you to contribute here. I am just
> trying to show you some of the benefits contributions can make to your
> users, the community as well as yourself. Your changes and improvements are
> yours to do with as you see fit, subject to licensing of course ;-)
> > >
> >
> > I don't see the benefit to our users if there are two different versions
> > of our contribution, one in the anoncvs and one in the Pro. In such
> > case, I prefer to have our own fork where we have control over what
> > goes into our code modules and where we are able to support it.
> >
> > The development model for kernels like RTEMS and linux seems more
> > reliable to me. There is only one code base and all testing, validation
> >
>
>  At least as far as Linux goes - this is malarkey.  There are more versions
>  of Linux out there than you could count, mostly for those platforms or
>  environments where the code either is not acceptable into the public
>  tree or simply kept back for commercial advantage.  For example, you don't
>  see the code for the LinkSys routers in the public tree...
>
>
>
> > and bug reporting is done on the same set of code. I believe this was also
> > the case for eCos as long as Cygnus maintained the code. Going back to
> > this model could in fact benefit eCos Pro, since it would create a much
> > larger user base for the Pro code, potentially finding more bugs and
> provide
> > more improvements. Just my 2 cents anyhow ...
> >
> > Jiri.
> >
> >
>
>
>  --
>  ------------------------------------------------------------
>  Gary Thomas                 |  Consulting for the
>  MLB Associates              |    Embedded world
>  ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>  --
>
>  Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
>  and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss
>
>

Hello!
Until now I've been largely an observer on this one. But regarding
Gary's argument regarding the code for the LinkSys routers, there's a
very good reason why it is not publicly available, and until a few
years ago, not at all available.

The company still refuses to believe that the GPLv2 (or GPLv3) license
still applies to what they either build or make arrangements to build.

And it happens that for some items they even refused to release the
source code for a few portions, leaving it as an OCO (Object Code
Only) binary.

Which was a fact which frustrated a lot of end users of this device.

By the time the firm reached its current design strategy time-period,
they came close. Very close in fact. However they still have that
peculiar opinion of their products and the licensing methods.

And I don't know how many of you remember, but that firm only started
releasing the code under what looked to be an out of court settlement
on the issue. And please note that I am not a lawyer, just someone who
uses the eCOS code for many ideas. (And reads one too many books
taking place in a certain lawyer's time and place.)
-- 
Gregg C Levine gregg.drwho8@gmail.com
"This signature was once found posting rude
 messages in English in the Moscow subway."

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


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