From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20162 invoked by alias); 5 Mar 2003 02:52:39 -0000 Mailing-List: contact overseers-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: overseers-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 20154 invoked from network); 5 Mar 2003 02:52:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO redhat.com) (24.131.133.249) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 5 Mar 2003 02:52:38 -0000 Received: by redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 201) id 66BAB1C21E; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:52:54 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 02:52:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: Jonathan Larmour Cc: overseers@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: sourceware.org Message-ID: <20030305025254.GA30703@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: Jonathan Larmour , overseers@sources.redhat.com References: <3E64C8F8.1060305@jifvik.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E64C8F8.1060305@jifvik.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-q1/txt/msg00352.txt.bz2 On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 03:40:40PM +0000, Jonathan Larmour wrote: >I've been thinking about the increased use of sourceware.org. In >particular, I've been wondering about whether something like using >ecos.sourceware.org might be a good idea. > >But if we listed that as the "canonical" site for eCos stuff, could we be >bitten by that trademark problem, or has that gone away now? I like the idea of having ecos.sourceware.org. I think the trademark issue may now be a nonissue but I don't know if anyone knows for sure. FWIW, I did get some buyin with allowing something like ecos.sources.redhat.com at one point here but I never followed through on it. I suspect that window of opportunity may have passed, though. cgf