From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29637 invoked by alias); 10 Apr 2003 23:21:09 -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 29629 invoked from network); 10 Apr 2003 23:21:08 -0000 Message-ID: <3E95FC5C.9070204@eCosCentric.com> Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 23:21:00 -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: ecos-maintainers@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [gnu.org #25869] eCos as an FSF project? References: <20030410214734.GH1904@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <20030410214734.GH1904@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg00025.txt.bz2 I don't think there are any problems with the FSF's response other than, obviously, the documentation.... FSF General Contact Address wrote: > > Such non-free documentation would be problematic, yes. So we can't even distribute the documentation with eCos even if it's not assigned to the FSF. The documentation is unfortunately IMO too important to lose. Most of it, including much of the RedBoot stuff, is pretty much 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. It seems that approaching Red Hat is back on the agenda (again!). I think we need a definite decision now on this before we try to get Red Hat's permission to assign copyright or relicense the docs under the FDL. If Red Hat don't oblige I believe we have consensus that the only feasible alternative is dropping assignments (but retaining a disclaimer). There probably isn't any sensible way to do this other than a vote, and there are 7 of us so no worries about a tie... so is this categorically what everyone agrees with? Please reply ASAP, as I'd like to get the ball rolling with Red Hat ASAP. Vote on ecos-maintainers-private[at]ecoscentric.com if you prefer. I vote to go ahead with Red Hat, but if that fails, drop assignments but retain a disclaimer. Something else to think about is whether we should plough ahead with 2.0 final anyway, or wait till we hear from Red Hat, or at the very least wait for some time period for Red Hat. For "just" the documentation, they will hopefully be amenable to an accommodation - it's not like the FSF are an unknown quantity! Something to consider anyway, and it's obvious we can't wait with 2.0 going stale, so I suggest a drop dead date, which we wouldn't be real close anyway, as there are still some outstanding 2.0 issues. 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