Hi, Andrew, Andrew Lunn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I just was told that the eCos copyright assignment is not to RedHat > > or eCosCentric, but to the FSF. > > > > That falsifies my statements about the RedHat sales droids, I presume, > > although there are still the "for other licenses, contact RedHat" > > statements scattered over the web and source. > > Yes, that statement is slowly being eradicated. When ever i touch a > file i tend to remove it. At some point we will wholesale remove the > rest, but that means touching nearly every file, so it is a big change > to CVS. So this is likely to happen at the same time we change the > Copyright notice to FSF which again needs to touch every file in the > repository. One of that statements is: | For information on obtaining alternative licences for JFFS2, see | http://sources.redhat.com/jffs2/jffs2-licence.html And that page on the web says "For information on obtaining alternative licences for JFFS2, contact Red Hat directly.". Maybe changing that information on the website is a quick&dirty way to break up the path of misleading statements. :-) Regards, Markus -- Markus Schaber | Logical Tracking&Tracing International AG Dipl. Inf. | Software Development GIS Fight against software patents in Europe! www.ffii.org www.nosoftwarepatents.org -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss
