Re: [ECOS] EB40A port is done!

[Iztok Zupet <iz at vsr dot si>]

On Wednesday 17 July 2002 10:18, Peter Vandenabeele wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 05:50:14PM -0700, David N. Welton wrote:
> > Doug Fraser <dfraser@photuris.com> writes:
> > > Even if you contribute directly to www.gnu.org you need to perform a
> > > copywrite assignment and possibly provide a disclaimer signed by
> > > your employer.
> > >
> > > http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain_7.html#SEC7
> > >
> > > So, no, simply having GPL'ed the code does not absolve the
> > > maintainer from this responsibility. Having non-assigned copywrites
> > > poisons GPL'ed code.
> >
> > Well, things like Linux are probably defensible, despite having lots
> > of 'poisoned' code.  The bigger problem, maybe, for an organization
> > like GNU, is the possibility of changing the copyright in the future.
>
> David,
> Doug,
>
> With all respect, I believe this to be incorrect.  The fundamental
> "fairness" of GPL consists of the fact that anyone who contributes source
> code to a GPL project, knows exactly what the rules are for that project
> and trusts the symmetry: "If I contribute my source now, others will have
> to contribute it too, later, when they start distributing an executable."
>
> Giving the opportunity to a specific organization to bend the rules at
> a later time (which is of the reasons why a number of organizations that
> manage Open Source projects request Copyright Assignment to them), moves
> that trust from trust in a fixed inalienable license on paper, to trust
> in the future behavior (let alone existence) of that organization.
>
> I believe this is the reason why GPL works: the license (that is
> comprehensible for anyone that takes the time to study it) is implicit
> in the project and is the contract that enforces the fairness and
> symmetry, instead of an organization that could always change its mind.
> (Obviusly, it becomes painfull when Software Patents are used as
> a "Deus ex machina" to overrule that fairness and still limit the
> free use of a piece of GPL code that was submitted earlier in good
> trust by a number of developers.)
>
> Other models with mixed licenses are possible. Typically this is a
> combination of a dual license (TrollTech) or quad license (Mozilla)
> or other special licenses (bitkeeper) with Copyright Assignment to a
> commercial entity. There you want to have a central company pushing a
> project harder (with the cash it gets from selling commercial (non GPL)
> licenses and/or from selling support) than would be the case it it were
> a straight GPL project. May I assume Cygnus/Redhat was the organisation
> pushing eCos in this manner ?
>
> I have the impression this concept (of a mixed license and push by
> a central commercial entity) works in certain cases and is defendable
> if implemented in a "fair" manner, with a correct balance between the
> interests of the Free Software community and of the commercial entity.
>
> One of the elements of such balance seems to me that contributors that
> are not associated with the central, maintaining organization need to
> have the right to set up at any time a separate CVS server where they
> can submit patches and build a forked version, in case they do not agree
> with the policy set forward by the central maintaining organization
> (especially if that organization would request Copyright Assignment as
> a pre-condition for allowing the patch in the central CVS server).
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Peter Vandenabeele
> peter@mind.be

According to my understanding of GPL-ed eCos things look that way:

  If One modifies or adds something to eCos, one must publish the patch or 
addon under the same GPL licence at least on the ecos-patch mailing list if 
not elswhere.

 But if One wants his changes or addons incorporated in the eCos public CVS 
tree, One should and must send the Copyright Assigment.

Regards
iz  

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