This is the mail archive of the
ecos-maintainers@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the eCos project.
Re: [gnu.org #25869] eCos as an FSF project?
- From: Jonathan Larmour <jifl at eCosCentric dot com>
- To: ecos-maintainers at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 00:21:00 +0100
- Subject: Re: [gnu.org #25869] eCos as an FSF project?
- References: <rt-25869@gnu.org> <rt-25869-73954.4.22037571649483@rt.gnu.org> <20030410214734.GH1904@gnu.org>
I don't think there are any problems with the FSF's response other than,
obviously, the documentation....
FSF General Contact Address wrote:
Such non-free documentation would be problematic, yes.
So we can't even distribute the documentation with eCos even if it's not
assigned to the FSF. The documentation is unfortunately IMO too important
to lose. Most of it, including much of the RedBoot stuff, is pretty much
irreplaceable really.
Red Hat disclaims all changes made by its employees to a number of GNU
programs. We may approach them about doing the same for eCos if you all
are dedicated to making it a GNU project, and may be able to deal with this
problem by obtaining full copyright on the document and relicensing it.
It seems that approaching Red Hat is back on the agenda (again!).
I think we need a definite decision now on this before we try to get Red
Hat's permission to assign copyright or relicense the docs under the FDL.
If Red Hat don't oblige I believe we have consensus that the only feasible
alternative is dropping assignments (but retaining a disclaimer).
There probably isn't any sensible way to do this other than a vote, and
there are 7 of us so no worries about a tie... so is this categorically
what everyone agrees with? Please reply ASAP, as I'd like to get the ball
rolling with Red Hat ASAP. Vote on
ecos-maintainers-private[at]ecoscentric.com if you prefer.
I vote to go ahead with Red Hat, but if that fails, drop assignments but
retain a disclaimer.
Something else to think about is whether we should plough ahead with 2.0
final anyway, or wait till we hear from Red Hat, or at the very least wait
for some time period for Red Hat. For "just" the documentation, they will
hopefully be amenable to an accommodation - it's not like the FSF are an
unknown quantity! Something to consider anyway, and it's obvious we can't
wait with 2.0 going stale, so I suggest a drop dead date, which we
wouldn't be real close anyway, as there are still some outstanding 2.0 issues.
Jifl
--
eCosCentric http://www.eCosCentric.com/ The eCos and RedBoot experts
--[ "You can complain because roses have thorns, or you ]--
--[ can rejoice because thorns have roses." -Lincoln ]-- Opinions==mine