From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9493 invoked by alias); 31 Mar 2003 15:26:54 -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 9486 invoked from network); 31 Mar 2003 15:26:54 -0000 Message-ID: <3E885E39.8070306@eCosCentric.com> Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:26:00 -0000 From: Jonathan Larmour User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-GB; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030314 X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Lunn Cc: ecos-maintainers@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: FWD: Re: [gnu.org #25869] eCos as an FSF project? References: <20030331121818.GK18641@biferten.ma.tech.ascom.ch> In-Reply-To: <20030331121818.GK18641@biferten.ma.tech.ascom.ch> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00087.txt.bz2 Andrew Lunn wrote: >>Becoming a GNU project means that the project developers agree to >>GNU policies. These are listed at >>. They are the full >>requirements; beyond what is listed there, the developers have full >>autonomy over the program's development. > > > I just skimmed through the policies. There are some things which would > cause difficulties, or at least need a lot of work. They specify how > release should be made and the look and feel of the web site etc. It > seems to me this will be the major problem with FSF, not the dealing > with the legal matters and assignments. I think we may be able to get some flexibility with the FSF since we are already an established project with established resources. Ditto things like a bug-ecos[at]gnu.org address. The bug*@gnu.org addresses are famous for the amount of spam and consequent abysmally low signal to ratio. The FSF won't run any spam filtering on the bug lists. We should stay with bugzilla, and I see no reason to have two separate bug reporting mechanisms. For GIFs, I would imagine the FSF will be happy with a gradual change to PNGs in the docs. The GIFs on the web pages are slightly more annoying because not every browser supports PNGs. The FSF will insist though, and for better or worse it isn't a big enough issue to reject for. Bart noticed the documentation licence could be a more interesting sticking point, but because of the (C) Red Hat we are not at liberty to change that to the FDL that the FSF would prefer. So I don't think the FSF will have much choice. They may insist on FDL for new documents. Jifl -- eCosCentric http://www.eCosCentric.com/ The eCos and RedBoot experts --[ "You can complain because roses have thorns, or you ]-- --[ can rejoice because thorns have roses." -Lincoln ]-- Opinions==mine