From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31569 invoked by alias); 14 Apr 2003 21:34:53 -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 31562 invoked from network); 14 Apr 2003 21:34:52 -0000 Message-ID: <3E9B297A.40607@jifvik.org> Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 21:34:00 -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: Tony Moretto , Mark Webbink , Michael Tiemann Cc: eCos Maintainers Subject: eCos licence Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg00044.txt.bz2 Hi all, I'd like to ask you for some help.... us eCos guys have now decided that it's probably best for everyone in the community if eCos becomes a GNU project. We have approached the FSF, and they are willing to do this. This is a very positive move for eCos as I hope you'd all agree. However we have one stumbling block which we need Red Hat's help with: the current eCos documentation is licenced under the Open Publication Licence (along with the OPL option "B" that prohibits publication in paper form without the copyright holder's permission). The current documentation is a mixture of stuff that is copyrighted by individual eCos maintainers, which we can deal with no problem, but also copyright Red Hat. Unfortunately the FSF do not find this documentation licence acceptable, and so we would be very grateful if Red Hat could do one of two things: either declare that RH is willing to licence it under the Free Documentation Licence , or, even better, assign copyright for the documentation to the FSF. Obviously assigning to the FSF is something Red Hat is pretty familiar with! But either option is fine. As I'm sure you agree, right now there's no real value to Red Hat in the current documentation licence as it now includes work by others, and so Red Hat would now be bound by the same OPL restrictions too! So we'd be grateful if you could help with this. Removing this stumbling block would mean that eCos and RedBoot both have a secure and bright future with the FSF. Thanks in advance! Jifl -- --[ "You can complain because roses have thorns, or you ]-- --[ can rejoice because thorns have roses." -Lincoln ]-- Opinions==mine