> There are several areas that need restructuring and work, and I am
> available to answer questions, and assist with technical consulting,
I'm not a file sustem hacker, nor since I work for one vendor the
appropriate owner for larg chunks of code in some people's eyes. I suspect
the FSF is a much much better asignee for the code itself
Alan
On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 01:50:00PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> I'm not a file sustem hacker, nor since I work for one vendor the
> appropriate owner for larg chunks of code in some people's eyes. I
> suspect the FSF is a much much better asignee for the code itself
I assume the legal threats that Jeff has experience will follow the
code? Surely before anyone wishes to adopt such a thing they should
get legal advice about the situation?
I would also expect if the FSF are not the assignee (the suggest that
they be is a very good one), then whomever does adopt it might want to
make sure they have some kind of legal representation available should
they need it.
It would be shame to let potentially useful code be left to die for
fear of bully-tactics if their claims are unfounded.
--cw
On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 01:50:00PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > I'm not a file sustem hacker, nor since I work for one vendor the
> > appropriate owner for larg chunks of code in some people's eyes. I
> > suspect the FSF is a much much better asignee for the code itself
>
> I assume the legal threats that Jeff has experience will follow the
> code? Surely before anyone wishes to adopt such a thing they should
> get legal advice about the situation?
>
> It would be shame to let potentially useful code be left to die for
> fear of bully-tactics if their claims are unfounded.
presuming they are unfounded, given the history of attacks by Novell,
perhaps the best move would be to turn it over to a company like compaq or
ibm given a written contract that they will keep it open source. Novell
can't be that stupid.
justin
On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 02:54:18AM +1200, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 01:50:00PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > I'm not a file sustem hacker, nor since I work for one vendor the
> > appropriate owner for larg chunks of code in some people's eyes. I
> > suspect the FSF is a much much better asignee for the code itself
>
> I assume the legal threats that Jeff has experience will follow the
> code? Surely before anyone wishes to adopt such a thing they should
> get legal advice about the situation?
>
> I would also expect if the FSF are not the assignee (the suggest that
> they be is a very good one), then whomever does adopt it might want to
> make sure they have some kind of legal representation available should
> they need it.
>
> It would be shame to let potentially useful code be left to die for
> fear of bully-tactics if their claims are unfounded.
>
Their power only extends to the borders of this state. They have little
ability to interfere wth someone in Swansea, Great Britian, or even
Silicon Valley, California. The problem I have is they can get the
local courts here to do whatever they ask. Not so other places. I think
it's pretty safe so long as I am not the one releasing it.
Jeff
>
> --cw
On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 12:23:17PM -0700, Justin Guyett wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 01:50:00PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> >
> > > I'm not a file sustem hacker, nor since I work for one vendor the
> > > appropriate owner for larg chunks of code in some people's eyes. I
> > > suspect the FSF is a much much better asignee for the code itself
> >
> > I assume the legal threats that Jeff has experience will follow the
> > code? Surely before anyone wishes to adopt such a thing they should
> > get legal advice about the situation?
> >
> > It would be shame to let potentially useful code be left to die for
> > fear of bully-tactics if their claims are unfounded.
>
> presuming they are unfounded, given the history of attacks by Novell,
> perhaps the best move would be to turn it over to a company like compaq or
> ibm given a written contract that they will keep it open source.
> Novell can't be that stupid.
Don't count on it. I had completed a fully 64-bit OS in 1997 for IA64,
four years before everyone else. It's been sitting in an archive
somewhere inside of Novell -- unused for no other reason than I
wrote it. I am waiting to see who would want it. It's open to
any takers. Alan may be in a conflict of interest with Red Hat
since Novell is an investor in them, so this I understand. I'll
wait and see who's interested. I would not be surprised if
someone from Novell asks to take it over.
Jeff
>
>
> justin