This is the mail archive of the ecos-discuss@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the eCos project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
Peter Vandenabeele wrote:
Yes, definitely, but not just yet :-). Please remember the offer for the future though :-).On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 06:21:54AM +0100, Jonathan Larmour wrote:Peter Vandenabeele wrote:[...]Schedule? None now. It's more a case of "X, Y, and Z need to be done first". That includes the patch backlog, website overhaul, and severe rewriting of big chunks of docs. And we've now lost a lot of the release infrastructure that was in place in Red Hat and we'd expected to use and that will need to be recreated.(b) what is the schedule to move 2.0 to beta and stable releases ?
Is there help we (or other interested parties) can offer ? Maybe some of the work/servers/infrastructure/cost centers can be spread over different parties to reach the result faster and spread the workload/cost ?
When the core CVS servers are not longer at Red Hat, we really need to reconsider the Copyright Assignment to Red Hat. I would not be happy if Red Hat sold the Copyright e.g. to a vendor of Closed Source OS's which could then include it into a proprietary product without payback to the contributionsThe CVS servers can remain at Red Hat (no reason not to), and the assignment is an orthogonal issue from that anyway. I'm sorry there hasn't been much movement here, but you'll have to believe me when I say there's a good reason!
from the community that has now formed outside of Red Hat. We figured out before that the current licensing scheme would legally allow this to Red Hat.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |