From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23388 invoked by alias); 6 May 2003 15:24:00 -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 23377 invoked from network); 6 May 2003 15:23:59 -0000 Message-ID: <3EB7D38E.5000804@jifvik.org> Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 15:24:00 -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 , ebachalo Cc: eCos Maintainers Subject: Re: eCos licence References: <3E9B297A.40607@jifvik.org> In-Reply-To: <3E9B297A.40607@jifvik.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00014.txt.bz2 Hi guys, I'm just wondering if any of you have had a chance to look at the below message? It only takes the right person to say "yes" for it to happen :-). I've also added Eric B in the hope that maybe he's the right person? Sorry for the wide posting, but I'd just like to get this sorted one way or the other. Jifl Jonathan Larmour wrote: > 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