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]

Re: Future code ownership


>>>>> "Frank" == Frank Ch Eigler <fche@redhat.com> writes:

    Frank> On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 10:29:12PM +0000, Bart Veer wrote:
    >> [...]
    >> Ideally Red Hat would assign to SPI as well, simplifying the whole
    >> situation. But if they do not, copyright enforcement is still an awful
    >> lot simpler when there only two copyright holders than when there are
    >> hundreds.  [...]

    Frank> I don't know for sure, but this belief sounds like an old
    Frank> wives' tale. Why is there an impression that an
    Frank> infringement suit can only proceed if *all* (vs. any) of
    Frank> the infringement victims want it to go ahead?

I didn't intend to give any such impression. As far as I am aware any
copyright holder can launch an infringement suit, it does not require
agreement by all of them. Of course if a copyright holder has only
contributed a few lines then a court might decide that the action was
frivolous. An open source organization like SPI will be taken
seriously.

Also, from the perspective of a potential user who is worried about
open source, having lots of copyright holders is a bad thing because
any of them might sue for some perceived slight. If instead copyright
is only held by one or two reputable organizations then such risks are
greatly reduced.

It does require agreement by all copyright holders to change the
license, or to grant license exemptions.

    >> The assignment process for a corporate employee also involves a
    >> disclaimer form that has to be signed by an officer of the
    >> company, as per the FSF. [...] there would be clear
    >> documentation showing that the maintainers had acted in good
    >> faith and had taken all reasonable precautions. [...]

    Frank> Yes, I'm aware of that. My point was that you could accept
    Frank> a lower standard of paperwork (basically the submitter's
    Frank> affirmation, perhaps in the form of a proposed copyright
    Frank> notice for the new code). I have heard of no contrasting
    Frank> outcome for infringement disputes involving projects that
    Frank> use looser vs. tighter submission paperwork rules. In other
    Frank> words, such "all reasonable precautions", while likely
    Frank> sufficient, may not be necessary to protect yourselves.

Not sure about that - if we are going to bother with copyright
assignments at all then we might as well do it properly. The FSF has
defined certain procedures which it considers necessary, and it has
some very good legal advisors. If a potential eCos user has questions
about the legal status of contributions, pointing at the FSF precedent
makes things a lot simpler.

Bart


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