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

[Jonathan Larmour]

Andrew Lunn wrote:
>>Becoming a GNU project means that the project developers agree to
>>GNU policies.  These are listed at
>><http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain_toc.html>.  They are the full
>>requirements; beyond what is listed there, the developers have full
>>autonomy over the program's development.
> 
> 
> I just skimmed through the policies. There are some things which would
> cause difficulties, or at least need a lot of work. They specify how
> release should be made and the look and feel of the web site etc. It
> seems to me this will be the major problem with FSF, not the dealing
> with the legal matters and assignments.

I think we may be able to get some flexibility with the FSF since we are 
already an established project with established resources. Ditto things 
like a bug-ecos[at]gnu.org address. The bug*@gnu.org addresses are famous 
for the amount of spam and consequent abysmally low signal to ratio. The 
FSF won't run any spam filtering on the bug lists. We should stay with 
bugzilla, and I see no reason to have two separate bug reporting mechanisms.

For GIFs, I would imagine the FSF will be happy with a gradual change to 
PNGs in the docs. The GIFs on the web pages are slightly more annoying 
because not every browser supports PNGs. The FSF will insist though, and 
for better or worse it isn't a big enough issue to reject for.

Bart noticed the documentation licence could be a more interesting 
sticking point, but because of the (C) Red Hat we are not at liberty to 
change that to the FDL that the FSF would prefer. So I don't think the FSF 
will have much choice. They may insist on FDL for new documents.

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