[ECOS] eCos copyright assignment for Freescale IMX35 RedBoot

Daniel Morris danielm@eCosCentric.com
Fri Oct 9 11:47:00 GMT 2009


On Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 11:57:51AM +0200, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Daniel Morris <danielm@ecoscentric.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 07:49:51AM +0200, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> >> How can I find out if Freescale has signed a copyright assignment
> >> for their RedBoot changes?
> >>
> >> http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/prod_summary.jsp?code=IMX35PDK
> >>
> >>
> >> Ask Freescale?
> >>
> >> "We have a policy of respecting all open source licenses."
> >>
> >> That is a great start and good to hear, but it doesn't answer my question...
> >
> > And do you think attempts at public ridicule or embarrassment will?
> 
> No.
> 
> And if anyone at Freescale is listening in on this, then please
> accept my apologies.
> 
> My major worry is that GPL code has crept into their RedBoot
> changes. As it seems pretty clear that they have not made a generic
> eCos HAL, but rather customized RedBoot to load Linux on their
> hardware, then presumably,  Freescale wouldn't have to worry about
> the eCos code becoming GPL.

Well, depending if they've started from 2.0 onwards, then they can of
course combine GPL code - subject to the whole then inheriting the full
GPL terms/obligations. I have to qualify that statement as it is
surprising the number of times that code turns out to have come from
pre-2.0 which was not "full GPL" compatible (and had onerous assignment
terms to a previous copyright holder).

Of course versioning/release numbering touches a whole other can of
worms! A case in point, a conversation whilst exhibiting at ESC Boston
two weeks ago, which started "But I thought eCos was dead". Now there
were very important reasons why the move from 2->3 was such a long time
coming and took such unrelenting persuasion to bring about the
sourcebase changes, but I think that as a whole community we need to be
aware of how eCos is perceived by those who could use it and may be
overlooking it.

I've long been an advocate of moving to a fixed-timescale (minor)
version numbering scheme. I read an interview with Greg Kroah-Hartman on
LWN a while ago where he made some pretty compelling arguments showing
how the major Linux distributions had benefited by moving to time-based
cycles from feature-based freezes, where it encouraged timely
contribution. Even on a more focused single-product, such as
VirtualBox, I find it reassuring to look back at the minor version
history and see them clocking along every couple of months.

I expect those in the know may continue to prefer to work directly with
a development repository or certified base, and may even consider an
eCos "tag, tar & compress" minor release bump each Spring & Autumn as a
distraction. However, showing the lights are on to the as-yet
uninitiated is an important part of continuing to build upon eCos'
growth.

 Daniel


%<----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Daniel Morris - Sales & Marketing Director
  eCosCentric - The eCos and RedBoot experts
  Tel: +44 1223 245 571 - info@eCosCentric.com
  DDI: +44 1269 591 171 - danielm@eCosCentric.com


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



More information about the Ecos-discuss mailing list