From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11760 invoked by alias); 13 Apr 2003 18:20:47 -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 11753 invoked from network); 13 Apr 2003 18:20:47 -0000 To: jifl@eCosCentric.com Cc: ecos-maintainers@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <3E95FC5C.9070204@eCosCentric.com> (message from Jonathan Larmour on Fri, 11 Apr 2003 00:21:00 +0100) Subject: Re: [gnu.org #25869] eCos as an FSF project? From: Bart Veer References: <20030410214734.GH1904@gnu.org> <3E95FC5C.9070204@eCosCentric.com> Message-Id: <20030413182043.B2831EC6F1@delenn.bartv.net> Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 18:20:00 -0000 X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg00037.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Jifl" == Jonathan Larmour writes: Jifl> I don't think there are any problems with the FSF's response Jifl> other than, obviously, the documentation.... Jifl> FSF General Contact Address wrote: >> >> Such non-free documentation would be problematic, yes. Jifl> So we can't even distribute the documentation with eCos even Jifl> if it's not assigned to the FSF. The documentation is Jifl> unfortunately IMO too important to lose. Most of it, Jifl> including much of the RedBoot stuff, is pretty much Jifl> irreplaceable really. >> Red Hat disclaims all changes made by its employees to a number >> of GNU programs. We may approach them about doing the same for >> eCos if you all are dedicated to making it a GNU project, and >> may be able to deal with this problem by obtaining full >> copyright on the document and relicensing it. Jifl> It seems that approaching Red Hat is back on the agenda Jifl> (again!). One possibility is to have the FSF approach Red Hat on this, rather than us. A message from RMS or some other senior FSF person is likely to get a more rapid response than yet another message from us. Jifl> I think we need a definite decision now on this before we Jifl> try to get Red Hat's permission to assign copyright or Jifl> relicense the docs under the FDL. If Red Hat don't oblige I Jifl> believe we have consensus that the only feasible alternative Jifl> is dropping assignments (but retaining a disclaimer). Jifl> There probably isn't any sensible way to do this other than Jifl> a vote, and there are 7 of us so no worries about a tie... Jifl> so is this categorically what everyone agrees with? Please Jifl> reply ASAP, as I'd like to get the ball rolling with Red Hat Jifl> ASAP. Vote on ecos-maintainers-private[at]ecoscentric.com if Jifl> you prefer. Jifl> I vote to go ahead with Red Hat, but if that fails, drop Jifl> assignments but retain a disclaimer. I vote to go ahead, but suggest a slightly different approach: 1) get confirmation from the FSF that the license exemption (or something equivalent) will be preserved in future. Unless we get a guarantee we should not go ahead. 2) have the FSF approach Red Hat about the documentation license, which can be done in parallel with (1). Jifl> Something else to think about is whether we should plough Jifl> ahead with 2.0 final anyway, or wait till we hear from Red Jifl> Hat, or at the very least wait for some time period for Red Jifl> Hat. For "just" the documentation, they will hopefully be Jifl> amenable to an accommodation - it's not like the FSF are an Jifl> unknown quantity! Something to consider anyway, and it's Jifl> obvious we can't wait with 2.0 going stale, so I suggest a Jifl> drop dead date, which we wouldn't be real close anyway, as Jifl> there are still some outstanding 2.0 issues. I believe 2.0 final should be independent of all this. Right now we want to concentrate on getting 2.0 final out, not address other issues like removing gifs. Bart