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: Bart Veer <bartv at ecoscentric dot com>
- To: jifl at eCosCentric dot com
- Cc: ecos-maintainers at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 19:20:43 +0100 (BST)
- 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> <3E95FC5C.9070204@eCosCentric.com>
>>>>> "Jifl" == Jonathan Larmour <jifl at eCosCentric dot com> writes:
Jifl> I don't think there are any problems with the FSF's response
Jifl> other than, obviously, the documentation....
Jifl> FSF General Contact Address wrote:
>>
>> Such non-free documentation would be problematic, yes.
Jifl> So we can't even distribute the documentation with eCos even
Jifl> if it's not assigned to the FSF. The documentation is
Jifl> unfortunately IMO too important to lose. Most of it,
Jifl> including much of the RedBoot stuff, is pretty much
Jifl> 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.
Jifl> It seems that approaching Red Hat is back on the agenda
Jifl> (again!).
One possibility is to have the FSF approach Red Hat on this, rather
than us. A message from RMS or some other senior FSF person is likely
to get a more rapid response than yet another message from us.
Jifl> I think we need a definite decision now on this before we
Jifl> try to get Red Hat's permission to assign copyright or
Jifl> relicense the docs under the FDL. If Red Hat don't oblige I
Jifl> believe we have consensus that the only feasible alternative
Jifl> is dropping assignments (but retaining a disclaimer).
Jifl> There probably isn't any sensible way to do this other than
Jifl> a vote, and there are 7 of us so no worries about a tie...
Jifl> so is this categorically what everyone agrees with? Please
Jifl> reply ASAP, as I'd like to get the ball rolling with Red Hat
Jifl> ASAP. Vote on ecos-maintainers-private[at]ecoscentric.com if
Jifl> you prefer.
Jifl> I vote to go ahead with Red Hat, but if that fails, drop
Jifl> assignments but retain a disclaimer.
I vote to go ahead, but suggest a slightly different approach:
1) get confirmation from the FSF that the license exemption (or
something equivalent) will be preserved in future. Unless we get a
guarantee we should not go ahead.
2) have the FSF approach Red Hat about the documentation license,
which can be done in parallel with (1).
Jifl> Something else to think about is whether we should plough
Jifl> ahead with 2.0 final anyway, or wait till we hear from Red
Jifl> Hat, or at the very least wait for some time period for Red
Jifl> Hat. For "just" the documentation, they will hopefully be
Jifl> amenable to an accommodation - it's not like the FSF are an
Jifl> unknown quantity! Something to consider anyway, and it's
Jifl> obvious we can't wait with 2.0 going stale, so I suggest a
Jifl> drop dead date, which we wouldn't be real close anyway, as
Jifl> there are still some outstanding 2.0 issues.
I believe 2.0 final should be independent of all this. Right now we
want to concentrate on getting 2.0 final out, not address other issues
like removing gifs.
Bart