Red Hat will give eCos Copyrights to the FSF! 197
An anonymous reader notes "Businesswire reports in this article that RedHat will assign its copyrights for the eCos embedded OS to the FSF. This is great news, considering that they have stopped developing it in 2002. Hopefully this will mean new life for the project."
If development stopped in 2002... (Score:5, Interesting)
tax writeoff (Score:4, Interesting)
Abandonware (Score:5, Interesting)
Go Red Hat! (Score:5, Interesting)
And as this shows, they often go above and beyond the mere requirements of the GPL. They've released a good amount of software under the GPL when they really didn't have to. They pay a lot of developers' salaries, too.
So I'd like to say thanks, Red Hat. I have nothing but good feelings toward you, and I hope you do better and better financially.
(Full disclosure: I don't work for Red Hat, don't own any of their stock, etc. I knew one guy who worked for them, but he was a tech support grunt there for a few months and I wasn't even in contact with him then. These opinions are my own.)
This is strange. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:This is strange. (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps this is RH's way of reliqusihing all ties.
I don't see how it serves much of a specific purpose though.
Mixed Feelings about news like this (Score:5, Interesting)
The first was because I thought if any company had a shot a taking a piece of Microsoft, it was Redhat. I use MS products everyday, probably always will, but I'm one who believes that MS got where they are with unfair market practices and ended up a little too big for their (and our) own good. By buying Redhat shares, I figured I was backing up my philosophy with my wallet.
The second reason is purely more pragmatic. Assuming Linux can take a stab at Microsoft, I believe Redhat is the most viable company to do it. In 30+ years, I'd like to think my decision to buy Redhat shares (when it was $12.00 a share) will be similar to people who bought Cisco, Oracle, MS, etc... back in the day. Sure the stock prices have wildly fluctuated, but look at the splits, and you realize just how much money there was to be made. So of course I would like to see that kind of return on this investment.
Which is why I end up conflicted when I see news like this. On the one hand, giving away a copyright is exactly the kind of collaboration you see with the Linux development model, and why it *may* in the end surpass MS in some, if not all, applications. But as a shareholder, giving away copyrights is hardly a way to grow a business. It took time, money, and effort to secure the copyright. Who knows if this news really effected shareprice, but with the release of this news, Redhat is down almost
I suppose that's why you need to leave your emotional mind out of the market place, to avoid investing with your heart, and not your head
just my
jeff
Re:Depends (Score:2, Interesting)
There are a lot of commercial companies actually using Linux, for whom QNX and eCOS are not worth the investment in light of recent kernel advances.
I've considered using eCOS in some of my commercial products, but found that Linux does just as good a job in the right hands... not that its the be-all/end-all of embedded operating systems, but it sure is nice to be able to use the same system on an Intel developers box and an [insert-cpu]-type embedded box, for development and deployment...
That's nice. Customers should require this. (Score:5, Interesting)
Vendors go bankrupt, exit a field of business, or simply discontinue products all the time. Deals like this could help small vendors, providing long-term customer assurance.
Re:That's nice. Customers should require this. (Score:2, Interesting)
Most software vendors who have offered this assurance are typically smaller scale. So this idea is out there indeed.
still being developed? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Depends (Score:5, Interesting)
It was very good and extremely competitive at the time though; i think the issue is just that this time has passed.
One thing you didn't give consideration to... (Score:3, Interesting)
With the FSF recieving ownership of the Copyrights on the code in question, you can bet your bottom dollar that it will be relicensed under the GPL or LGPL the moment that the ownership changes hands.
Re:This is strange. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:That's nice. Customers should require this. (Score:4, Interesting)
The difference is that users can now be assured that eCos will be released under the GPL only in the future. The copyright owner can always license software out however they want and RedHat did use a GPL-compatible license. It was already Open Source, but it wasn't already Free.
Re:That's nice. Customers should require this. (Score:3, Interesting)
But the net effect of requiring this escrow for general-use software (read: not a custom job for the client) would be to devalue most software company's assets in the event of a liquidation. When liquidating, companies look to realize as much value as possible from whatever assets they possess at the time. This usually takes the form of an IP sale.
In such a case as you describe, no external company would be motivated to bid for a insolvent company's software assets--why, when they're most likely going to go open immediately upon formal dissolution of the original owner?
This implied de-valuation removes a significant hedge strategy from the hands of start-ups and would be entered into reluctantly, at best, by all but the largest, most well-established companies. I wouldn't ever expect to see your idea widely adopted.
A shame, though--it really does benefit the people shelling out those big checks for these systems....
Re:hmm... (Score:3, Interesting)
The eCOS license applies the GPL terms only to the actual eCOS license, but not to any user application code linked to eCOS. This is similar to how you can run an application program on a Linux kernel without the application being subject to the GPL. However, with eCOS, normally the application is linked directly to the eCOS kernel, so the modified license takes that into account.
Another embedded OS : Inferno (Score:3, Interesting)
A spin off from the plan9 project was Inferno [vitanuova.com].
The 4th Edition is now released under a dual licence such that all source code is available under a Free licence [vitanuova.com] (as defined by the FSF). The GPL it isn't but it brings the world of Limbo into the open.
Serious question here about end-of-life support (Score:4, Interesting)
Let's say MS was to release the source to Windows 98 4 years from now. Obviously no support for the software, MS is hoping everyone has upgraded. So, IMMEDIATELY people begin ripping the code apart, seeing blatant software security issues in the code.
Who is responsible for the ensuing chaos that results from the hacks and cracks that occur because now everyone knows where the buffer overflows are. Microsoft indemnifies themself, and then the user of the original software is left to hang.
I can think of one good example. I'm still a big fan of Quake II, and since the code release, there have been some SERIOUS cheats developed.
Just a thought