Re: [gnu.org #25869] eCos as an FSF project?

[Bart Veer <bartv at ecoscentric dot 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