public inbox for
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jonathan Larmour <>
To: Gary Thomas <>
Cc: eCos Maintainers <>
Subject: Re: FSF status
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 14:01:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1066225051.32461.23.camel@hermes>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1421 bytes --]

Gary Thomas wrote:
> Jonathan,
> Have you made any progress with the FSF changeover?

Not for a while. I last prodded them on the 8th (I've attached my last 
message FYI). There's some speculation the FSF is tied up with SCO (who 
have now expanded their claims to encompass the validity of the GPL in 
general:  and now there's also Linksys. Both are discussed here:

However there are some steps we can take now other than the assignment to 
at least work on the vendor independence. In particular, to try and move 
as many references as possible from to including list addresses; at least as much as 
we can.

But we haven't formally agreed that everyone's okay with that. I had hoped 
before for something like, but the FSF's position is such 
that we would only be able to get at present. So is the only sensible way forward IMHO as I doubt we 
want to change home pages again if and when we become official GNU. Unless 
there are objections, I'll assume that's the official stance now and we 
can look at fixing up references and set up a RedirectMatch in the httpd 
config to forward to

eCosCentric    The eCos and RedBoot experts
--["No sense being pessimistic, it wouldn't work anyway"]-- Opinions==mine

[-- Attachment #2: Attached Message --]
[-- Type: message/rfc822, Size: 5856 bytes --]

From: Jonathan Larmour <>
To: FSF General Contact Address <>
Subject: Re: [ #25869] eCos as an FSF project?
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 13:34:44 +0100
Message-ID: <>

Hi, it's been over two months now since I've heard anything, so I'm just 
wondering what the status is?

I really want to get to the point where the FSF is accepting assignments 
for us (and we're prepared to do so). All this time, more work is being 
assigned to Red Hat instead.



Jonathan Larmour wrote:
> Hi,
> I know you'll have a backlog, but I'm being pestered to resolve this as 
> time ticks merrily on. Any chance someone could look at this?
> Thanks!
> Jifl
> Jonathan Larmour wrote:
>> FSF General Contact Address wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 01:23:16PM -0400, Jonathan Larmour via RT wrote:
>>>> Have you had any success in relation to the below mail? I'm just 
>>>> wondering how we can try and push on as we are still keen to do 
>>>> this, and are more than a little annoyed ourselves that it's being 
>>>> held up by Red Hat :-|.
>> Hi Brett,
>> I realised I should have replied earlier, sorry.
>>> I am very sorry for the late response to this message.  Since we are a
>>> non-profit with very limited resources, messages to this address 
>>> often get
>>> backlogged, and we are always struggling to catch up.
>> As a startup company working with OSS, I can vouch for the lack of 
>> available time!
>>> So long as eCos is following GNU policies, we are willing to accept its
>>> copyright, even if it does not officially become GNU software.
>> Excellent! In that case, be prepared to receive some assignments soon.
>>  >  As such, so
>>> long as you are doing that, it seems like we can begin a process 
>>> which will
>>> go something like this: we will take copyright on the eCos software --
>>> excluding the documentation -- as a non-GNU program.  Once we can 
>>> establish
>>> with Red Hat that we hold copyright for most of eCos,
>> That may take some time to establish as core parts of eCos don't 
>> change radically that quickly - people want stability in an embedded 
>> OS. Plus to date the policy has been assignments to Red Hat for all 
>> contributions, excepting the eCos maintainers' own work (we were able 
>> to trust ourselves to assign to the FSF later!).
>>> we will approach them
>>> about assigning their copyright on the work, including the 
>>> documentation,
>>> to us as well.  While we are in those negotiations, eCos can be 
>>> evaluated
>>> for inclusion as part of the GNU project.  With some luck, those 
>>> processes
>>> will hopefully finish around the same time, at which point we can accept
>>> copyright assignments for the rest of the documentation and have it 
>>> be part
>>> of GNU eCos as well.
>> Can you not accept the assignment for the documentation anyway, even 
>> if under a non-free licence? Otherwise we have to have people set up 
>> two assignments in order to contribute to eCos - one to the FSF for 
>> code, and one to Red Hat for documentation (and of course all code 
>> should have documentation ;-)).
>> Obviously if we didn't ask for assignments for documentation at all, 
>> then we wouldn't be able to assign it to the FSF down the road either, 
>> so this way when we get Red Hat to Do The Right Thing, the FSF will 
>> then have everything it needs.
>> The idea is that this is purely a temporary arrangement with the 
>> obvious goal being the FSF's complete ownership of eCos. If that 
>> wasn't the goal and we were prepared to be content with the status 
>> quo, I wouldn't ask.
>> Hmm... does this mean the the FSF is no longer pressing Red Hat for 
>> changes to the documentation licence (or assigning it)? Were you able 
>> to contact anyone in RH and get a response?
>>> As far as I can tell, there is only one outstanding issue.  Earlier, you
>>> indicated that you would like some form of guarantee that we will not
>>> remove the license exception from eCos without due cause and prior
>>> discussion with the eCos maintainers.  Can you give me a better idea 
>>> of how
>>> you would like to see this promise made, and how it could 
>>> specifically be
>>> worded?  We want to be sure that everyone is on the same page with this.
>> Sure. The important fact is that it would be a publically recorded 
>> declaration, as we know the FSF wouldn't backtrack on that (we do 
>> trust you really :-)) because of the bad press. I'm thinking of 
>> something along the lines of:
>> -=-=-=-
>> The Free Software Foundation understands the value to the eCos project 
>> of a licence that allows application code to be linked with eCos 
>> without being covered by the GNU General Public License. The Free 
>> Software Foundation undertakes to preserve the spirit of the current 
>> form of the eCos licence, and will modify the licence only with due 
>> cause and after discussion and agreement with the eCos maintainers.
>> -=-=-=-
>> Of course this is unlikely to ever be an issue, but we're just 
>> covering ourselves, if nothing else, from worries from the eCos 
>> developer community when we publicise the FSF's new role with eCos.
>> Jifl

--["No sense being pessimistic, it wouldn't work anyway"]-- Opinions==mine

  reply	other threads:[~2003-10-15 14:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2003-10-15 13:37 Gary Thomas
2003-10-15 14:01 ` Jonathan Larmour [this message]
2005-05-04 14:38 Gary Thomas
2005-05-04 15:03 ` Jonathan Larmour
2005-05-06 12:33   ` Mark Salter
2006-09-08  9:19 Andrew Lunn
2006-09-08 17:03 ` Jonathan Larmour
2006-09-08 17:13   ` Andrew Lunn
2006-09-08 18:51     ` Jonathan Larmour

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).