Re: Future code ownership

[Jonathan Larmour <jifl at jifvik dot org>]

Hi Tony and Mark,

Is there really no interest or comment from Red Hat on the below? The 
clock is ticking.

Jifl

Jonathan Larmour wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I would like to bring the issue in this thread to a conclusion without 
> much further delay. However I agree with the sentiments that we should 
> seek an official position from Red Hat to consider before we make an 
> irrevocable step.
>
> To that end I am CC'ing this to two people in Red Hat I believe should 
> be able to inform us, and I hope they (or some more appropriate person) 
> will be able to give us an idea of Red Hat's official position. Alas, I 
> think I will have to put a two week limit on this (Sun Jan 26th) - if 
> nothing is received in that time, we will have to reach a conclusion 
> without Red Hat. That is more than enough time for Red Hat to discuss 
> this internally.
>
> To Tony and Mark: in summary, the issue is the continuation of copyright 
> assignments to Red Hat which a significant number of contributors now 
> object to, mostly due to Red Hat no longer having any significant role 
> in eCos's development and therefore little interest in its success. Some 
> people also feel aggrieved by Red Hat for reasons of their own. Some 
> feel that, even given assurances, Red Hat can no longer be trusted. 
> Whatever the reason (and we aren't responsible for those opinions!), it 
> is something that needs to be addressed in the interests of the eCos 
> open source community.
>
> To that end, a number of options were presented as per 
> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/ecos-maintainers/2002-12/msg00001.html and 
> followed up to in subsequent messages. Although no conclusion has yet 
> been reached, the two options being considered most appear to be 
> dropping the requirement for copyright assignments completely, or 
> assigning to a not-for-profit entity. In the latter case, SPI (Software 
> in the Public Interest) who represent many other Open Source groups 
> (even owning the Open Source brand) such as Debian Linux, GNOME, etc. 
> have been approached and have stated their willingness to do so.
>
> Also in the latter case, we see some possibility of permitting 
> exemptions from the usual GPL licence obligations for large companies 
> who are too dumb to embrace Free Software, but at a price. That price 
> would be put exclusively towards the benefit of eCos, the Open Source 
> project. Restrictions would be put in place to prevent maintainer's 
> benefitting from decisions about how that money would be spent in which 
> they took part.
>
> It is this more than anything that we seek Red Hat's opinion of. Would 
> they in principle be willing to work with the maintainers and SPI to 
> arrange such licensing exemptions? Would they be willing to outline what 
> the likely terms in principle would be? I should probably point out that 
> if we cannot come to some mutual agreement then Red Hat will not be able 
> to benefit at all. I should also add that this cannot be the subject of 
> long negotiation. There is a 2.0 beta release coming up, with a 2.0 
> final soon after. We will not delay the releases to have this resolved, 
> and will need to reach a decision with or without Red Hat.
>
> If you wish, you may reply in private to me and I will gladly forward to 
> all maintainers, although purely for transparency it would be preferred 
> if this was in the open on the ecos-maintainers mailing list (which has 
> public archives) if it is commercially possible. Alternatively, you can 
> phone me, and I will act as intermediary as best I can, although the 
> final decision will be collective. Contact phone number available if you 
> e-mail me off list.
>
> I should add for the absence of doubt to Tony and Mark, that this is 
> purely in the context of an eCos maintainer, and nothing to do with 
> eCosCentric or any other commercial organisation. In this discussion, we 
> the maintainers (made up of people from eCosCentric, Mind, Ascom as well 
> as Red Hat) are acting purely for the benefit of the open source 
> project, even if this is contrary to our employer's preferences; as with 
> other open source projects.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Jifl
> // Nominal eCos chief maintainer

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