This is the mail archive of the
ecos-maintainers@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the eCos project.
Re: eCos licence
- From: Jonathan Larmour <jifl at jifvik dot org>
- To: Tony Moretto <tmoretto at redhat dot com>,Mark Webbink <mwebbink at redhat dot com>,Michael Tiemann <tiemann at redhat dot com>, ebachalo <ebachalo at redhat dot com>
- Cc: eCos Maintainers <ecos-maintainers at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 16:23:58 +0100
- Subject: Re: eCos licence
- References: <3E9B297A.40607@jifvik.org>
Hi guys,
I'm just wondering if any of you have had a chance to look at the below
message? It only takes the right person to say "yes" for it to happen :-).
I've also added Eric B in the hope that maybe he's the right person? Sorry
for the wide posting, but I'd just like to get this sorted one way or the
other.
Jifl
Jonathan Larmour wrote:
Hi all,
I'd like to ask you for some help.... us eCos guys have now decided that
it's probably best for everyone in the community if eCos becomes a GNU
project. We have approached the FSF, and they are willing to do this.
This is a very positive move for eCos as I hope you'd all agree.
However we have one stumbling block which we need Red Hat's help with:
the current eCos documentation is licenced under the Open Publication
Licence <http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/> (along with the OPL option
"B" that prohibits publication in paper form without the copyright
holder's permission). The current documentation is a mixture of stuff
that is copyrighted by individual eCos maintainers, which we can deal
with no problem, but also copyright Red Hat.
Unfortunately the FSF do not find this documentation licence acceptable,
and so we would be very grateful if Red Hat could do one of two things:
either declare that RH is willing to licence it under the Free
Documentation Licence <http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/fdl.html>, or, even
better, assign copyright for the documentation to the FSF. Obviously
assigning to the FSF is something Red Hat is pretty familiar with! But
either option is fine.
As I'm sure you agree, right now there's no real value to Red Hat in the
current documentation licence as it now includes work by others, and so
Red Hat would now be bound by the same OPL restrictions too!
So we'd be grateful if you could help with this. Removing this stumbling
block would mean that eCos and RedBoot both have a secure and bright
future with the FSF.
Thanks in advance!
Jifl
--
--[ "You can complain because roses have thorns, or you ]--
--[ can rejoice because thorns have roses." -Lincoln ]-- Opinions==mine