From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3168 invoked by alias); 17 Dec 2002 09:27:26 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ecos-maintainers-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-maintainers-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 3154 invoked from network); 17 Dec 2002 09:27:23 -0000 Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 01:27:00 -0000 From: Andrew Lunn To: Jonathan Larmour Cc: eCos Maintainers Subject: Re: Future code ownership Message-ID: <20021217092616.GN350@biferten.ma.tech.ascom.ch> References: <3DFDF6B7.8090008@jifvik.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3DFDF6B7.8090008@jifvik.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Filter-Version: 1.6 (rubicon) X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00004.txt.bz2 > 6) Software in the Public Interest, Inc. is a US not-for-profit > organisation. Its goals are to advance open > source. They are well known already as the copyright holders of many well > known projects like Debian Linux, GNOME, LSB as well as owners of the Open > Source marque, and so on. They are trusted. We have already taken the > step of asking them in principle if they could accept eCos as a project, > even with our funky licensing proposal outlined above. And as you can see > from > > this was accepted. > > Personally I favour this option. I think it is best for eCos as an Open > Source project, and I would like to hope even Red Hat would be able to > support it, as it would be in the long-term best interests of eCos. > Besides if the licensing proposal does pay off, they would profit! Has the opinion of RH been sought on this? To me, this does seem like the best option. Andrew