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."
New life for the project? (Score:5, Funny)
If development stopped in 2002... (Score:5, Interesting)
It could possible be (Score:1, Informative)
Re:If development stopped in 2002... (Score:5, Informative)
Redhat has continued to host the eCos project, just like they do for gcc and gdb, and the eCosCentric team has been writing updates as far as i know.
tax writeoff (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:tax writeoff (Score:5, Informative)
Of course you can't. (Score:4, Informative)
You can deduct goods, not time or services rendered. Not unless the donation of those services have a direct impact on your companies bottom line (ie, the donation nof thoe services meant lost time where you could have made profit from soemthing else ).
Re:Of course you can't. (Score:2)
What's really interesting is that Microsoft is allowed to pay reduced taxes due to "donating" software licenses to schools. Giving the licenses away costs them nothing, increases their market share, makes their monopoly even more firmly entrenched, and yet somehow still is a tax deduction.
It makes the tax paying public look like fools.
Re:tax writeoff (Score:2)
Re:tax writeoff (Score:2)
1) Write Website Code & Burn to CD 2) Value Website at $$$$$ 3) ????? 4) Profit!!!111one
Re:tax writeoff (Score:2)
Re:tax writeoff (Score:2)
Why would one want a tax writeoff at the -beginning- of the year? The -end- of the year makes more sense. We pay taxes now on -last- year's activities, not this year's.
You pay taxes all year long. This will count for their CY04 taxes, even in January. Besides, I doubt this move was motivated by financial or tax reasons -- they probably donated it because they have no interest in the project and feel the community's needs are best met by the FSF taking control. This isn't the first time Red Hat did somet
Re:tax writeoff (Score:3, Informative)
I was albe to write off 4 websites for non-profit groups.
1 - document hours spend working on it.
2 - Bill the group a real invoice for services rendered.
3 - get from them your form showing the donation amount.
Voila! tax writeoffs. a website is no different than donating IT time. Time spent as labor is time spent as labor, there are no provisions for it must be on specific items.
My CPA was who showed the correct proceedure to get things documented correctly to make it deductable
Re:tax writeoff (Score:2)
Your CPA is better than our CPA, then. We followed all of those steps, and then bubkas. We even got the letters from the organizations listing the amount of the donation.
Nothing.
Re:tax writeoff (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:tax writeoff (Score:2)
Here in the UK the three are usually different.
Financial years rollover on April 1st.
A Company's financial year rollover is chosen by the company.
This is so that there isn't a pile of work needed to be done around Christmas.
Is the US not the same / similar?
Re:tax writeoff (Score:2)
Choosing a fiscal year [taxguru.org]
Info about form 1120 [unclefed.com]
Stopped developing it in 2002? (Score:5, Informative)
The web site indecates new development as recent as September of last year.
Re:Stopped developing it in 2002? (Score:5, Informative)
>September of last year.
Um, development has been ongoing, irrespective of Red Hat's loss of interest back at the start of 2002. There just hasn't been any big news since then. See the patch list [sourceware.org] for example.
The eCos maintainers (of which I'm one) have been pushing for a solution to the copyright issue for quite some time. It's good for everyone that Red Hat have donated eCos to the FSF.
Depends (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess that kind of depends on whether anyone cares or not. Most people who might have used eCos for the commercial support aspect, are using the high powered and rock-solid QNX OS. And those who wanted free embedded OSes for home projects are already using Embedded Linux or *BSD. Even more difficult for eCos is that embedded Linux and *BSD distros are usually custom to the application. Why would anyone want the overhead of a prepackaged solution?
Perhaps eCos has its uses, but it's a very small niche.
The problem with QNX (Score:1, Insightful)
Maybe hacking eCos will give us the first "high powered, rock-solid and truly Free" embedded OS.
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
Re:Depends (Score:5, Funny)
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'm sorry. I could have sworn that I already stated that the other end of the spectrum is "already using Embedded Linux and *BSD". Oh wait. I did.
You might save yourself some trouble if you read more carefully.
Re:Depends (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re:Depends (Score:3, Insightful)
eCos on these Super fast processors can now deliver more than the same processor using a larger/slower OS.
make a pocket video playback unit with eCos that is only slow and choppy with the larger players.
just because you have more processing power does not mean it's smart to use it up with a larger platform that you won't use the added functionality.
Re:Depends (Score:2)
Re:Open source is cheaper, even if you pay (Score:3, Insightful)
It's probably cheaper to port your apps to Linux than to pay someone to enhance eCos. Plus, Linux has had this stuff for a while; it's tested, it's known to be stable. Any new implimentation might have inefficiencies, which adds more worries.
I'm talking out of my ass, since I don't know eCos or any RTOS, but I'm guessing that it's a simple matt
Re:Open source is cheaper, even if you pay (Score:2)
Re:Depends (Score:4, Informative)
I think you need to read up more on eCos! To call eCos "prepackaged" is about as far from the truth as you can get. The big C in eCos stands for configurable, and it is far more configurable and customizable to your application than any Linux or BSD will ever be, and certainly QNX.
eCos is for the deeply embedded market, and embedded Linux, even in 2.6 is so much bigger. eCos systems start from just a few KB (~10KB I think I remember), and scale up from there as you use more features - using configuration, just exactly the features you want, and with the semantics you want. You get the choice.
Add to that that eCos is completely open source, and royalty free with no upfront costs either (although you do have the option of commercial support [ecoscentric.com] if you do want it), and you'll understand why eCos is so popular.
eCos supports many more targets and architectures than QNX too.
Re:QNX IS ON TEH SPOKE!!~1`` (Score:5, Funny)
Here we have an example of the rarest of birds, an informed and insightful post... on slashdot.
QNX truly is the king of kings.
To which I replied:
Check my posting history. I don't always get it right, but I always attempt to present an informed and useful opinion.
And if you don't care for friendly banter, you can mark me as a foe. I'll get all broken up about it. Really. (rolls eyes)
Re:QNX IS ON TEH SPOKE!!~1`` (Score:2)
Re:Negative moderations (Score:2)
No. Nothing with the n-word gets meta modded as unfair, assuming it's modded negatively.
"You may not like the fact that some posts get negative mods, but it's for the greater good. If we didn't have neg mods and metamods, the whole place would be overrun by trolls."
No. The trolls use anonymous posting. They're not going to get modded up, so if they stay at 0, all's good. The place will not be over
Re:Negative moderations (Score:2)
That is exactly what my sig says and implies, and you were right to think that. Unfortunately, I am limited on sig length, plus it doesn't sound so threatening when I clarify hehe.
For the record, I actually do read what I'm modding as unfair. But, for the most part, they're nearly all modded as unfair.
Abandonware (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Abandonware (Score:5, Informative)
Abandonware != transfer copyright (Score:2, Informative)
hmm... (Score:5, Funny)
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
Re:hmm... (Score:2)
Re:hmm... (Score:2)
With the eCos modified GPL (which is essentially the same as the RTEMS modified GPL), if I link my proprietary code to the kernel, I am only obligated to provide the kernel sources (including any modifications I've made to the kernel). I don't have to provide
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.)
Re:Go Red Hat! (Score:1, Insightful)
It might be fair and honest on paper to dump their desktop clients in favor of enterprise clients, but I will never forget or forgive them for that decision.
Re:Go Red Hat! (Score:1)
Its just that those who hate RH are the only ones talking about it. You're only sampling data from one side of the argument, because you rarely get someone going to a lot of trouble to praise something as avidly as they might criticize it...
Human nature. Get used to it, and try to read it properly.
In my experience... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:In my experience... (Score:2)
And it is their responsibility as an OS manufacturer to make sure the hardware works. The fact that they gave no consideration to that was a bit upsetting.
Re:In my experience... (Score:2)
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.
Re:This is strange. (Score:3, Insightful)
Red Hat was the copyright holder. They got eCos when they bought (IIRC) Cygnus. Thus, what they are doing here is not simply licensing eCos to FSF; they are transferring the copyright to FSF. FSF now is the copyright holder, not simply a licensee.
My reading of this is that it means that Red Hat is not interested in spending money defending the eCos copyright, if it should be violated. Only th
Re:This is strange. (Score:2)
But when the stakes DO get high enough, there is a world of difference between a license which has been found valid by a judge, and one which has not. Because the potential payoff is high enough for SCO, they are willing to go up against the GPL.
Of course, even a judge's decision doesn't mean someone won't re-arg
Re:This is strange. (Score:2, Informative)
They've assigned the copyrights (not code) over to the FSF. The code has always been available from: http://ecos.sourceware.org/getstart.html
Re:This is strange. (Score:4, Informative)
Assigning copyright to the FSF means that the FSF now owns the eCos codebase and they can do whatever they want with it including publishing it under the GPL.
Basically the point of this is so that if a developer wants to contribute to the eCos codebase they fill out a copyright assignment to the FSF instead of RedHat from now on.
Re:This is strange. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:This is strange. (Score:2)
The last time i checked, they had transitioned to a modified GPL. In fact i dont think the license is GPL compatable, since the modification they made allows companies to opt out of open-sourcing code they link against eCos, basically avoiding the corporation-unfriendly aspect of the GPL.
Re:This is strange. (Score:2)
I understand the point of the exception, and the reasoning behind it. I more than agree with it too. The reason i made the "gpl imconpatible" comment is that the exception basically undermines one of the main provisions of the GPL regarding redistribution. I dont know if you follow linux stuff at all, but even recently Linus stated that kernel modules built specif
eCos wasn't GPLed. (Score:2)
Re:This is strange. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:This is strange. (Score:2)
No, any original work you do can be licensed any way you want. If you combine your work with GPL'd code, then the combined result must be GPL if you distribute it, but your individual sections can still be under another license as long as that license is GPL-compatible or you don't distribute.
Thus, any BSD-licensed bits in the Linux kernel are still BSD-licensed, even though the kernel as a whole is GPL'd.
and must be published.
Good news (Score:2, Insightful)
It's good to see a company with its head screwed on straight, who can acknowledge when its time to move on from old wares and just let them go, instead of clinging to everything it's ever had its hands in, even when it's obviously pointless to do so.
Where has eCos been used? (Score:2)
Thanks in advance.
---anactofgod---
Re:Where has eCos been used? (Score:5, Informative)
eCos use, "abandonware", etc.... (Score:2)
eCos is not abandonware!
Development has continued throughout the project's life. I think the only thing that was in question was who the code actually belonged to. It's always been GPL'ed.
As to what it's used for, I don't know about commercially, but I've used it for a couple of fun/learning projects: "Scivoli" - a bootable floppy image that loads jpegs from the floppy and displays the to the screen, and "ZOG", which is the ficl forth interpreter layered on t
Dreamcast Linux (Score:5, Informative)
-Erwos
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:Mixed Feelings about news like this (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Mixed Feelings about news like this (Score:1, Insightful)
Taking exception with the management for continued funding for the project when they saw it wasn't going to make any money is one thing; but taking exception for throwing away the "value" in the copyright of the commercially unsusccesful project is another.
Sure, you can use 20/20 hindsight and lambast them for funding it in the first place. And anyone familiar with R&D in
Re:Mixed Feelings about news like this (Score:2)
It's not as if Redhat is somehow being forced legally to assign copyrights to some major portion of what generates profitability for them. eCos doesn't fit with what Redhat's business model is about any more, so they're giving it away.
I say, "Good for them!"
Re:Mixed Feelings about news like this (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, the commercial prospects around it will always be running madly on top of a rolling ball of snow (to continue with and strain the analogy). Some might manage to remai
Re:Mixed Feelings about news like this (Score:2)
Presumably, Cygnus was aquired more for their Linux solutions and experience, and eCos was sort of something that came along. I always saw it more as a hindrance to Red Hat. Red Hat had always been strictly Linux based, and now they had to justify this side project and make it fit with their business strategy. They tried a c
Re:Mixed Feelings about news like this (Score:2)
The way I see it, if folks that believe in open source software start to buy up some stock in companies that support open source software (directly or indirectly), than those companies will get a bit of a boost in share price. Who cares?
Welp, in the case of Red Hat (at $4 a share), boosting the price by even a few percentage points helps keep it out of pe
What has really changed? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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.
Re:That's nice. Customers should require this. (Score:2)
Of course, this is no real remedy, since a customer that purchased the vendor's products typically doesn't have the resources to maintain the product on their own.
Regardless, a customer that decided to purchase a closed-source solution is probably not at-tal
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:2)
Re:That's nice. Customers should require this. (Score:2)
Whether the eCOS modified GPL is "GPL-compatible" is irrelevant to determining whether it is "Free". For instance, the original BSD license is considered by the FSF to be Free but not GPL-Compatible, as are a whole list of oth [gnu.org]
Re:That's nice. Customers should require this. (Score:2)
Full definition: FSF Free Software Definition [gnu.org].
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
Re:That's nice. Customers should require this. (Score:2)
Re:That's nice. Customers should require this. (Score:2)
Given enough time, some of these products end up becoming the software equivalents of the unwanted fruitcakes we receive in December, constantly being bounced from one insolvent company to another.
You're right they may not blossom post-liquidation. But there's still plenty of people willing to take the ch
Re:That's nice. Customers should require this. (Score:2)
For a good laugh (assuming you're not an ASP user) see ASP news. [xspsite.net] Lots of happy talk about how,
Re:That's nice. Customers should require this. (Score:2)
Re:That's nice. Customers should require this. (Score:2)
still being developed? (Score:1, Interesting)
Red Hat quit developing on it... (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Development has been continuous (Score:4, Informative)
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
Re:Serious question here about end-of-life support (Score:3, Insightful)
I suspect. (Score:2)
(translation)
I suspect this is redhat's way of donating technology they weren't making any money off of and using the Positive PR to make up for Negative PR they recieved last time they dumped liabilities onto the community.
Either way, works for me, thanks redhat
It makes little difference... (Score:2)
Naturally, I hope development will continue, much of my interest is in smaller things like microcontrollers where this is of use.
Get it right! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Wonderful news! (Score:5, Informative)
If you are interested in developing with eCos the only book I know of is
Embedded Software Development with eCos [amazon.com]
First chapter of the book...
Read the rest of the chapter [informit.com] yourself.
Re:Wonderful news! (Score:2)
Re:Wonderful news! (Score:1)
Re: Semper non sequitur. (Score:2)
gibberish by posting as an AC to
I'm surprised I hadn't noticed earlier.
Re:I blame the liberal media... (Score:2)