[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: guildhall status

From: Andy Wingo
Subject: Re: guildhall status
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 16:57:09 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux)


Thanks for the feedback!

On Mon 18 Jul 2011 15:06, address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

>> I will see if I can get work to sponsor a server that we can use, and
>> see if we can get it aliased to -- unless someone else
>> would like to provide the server.  It would be nice to have root on that
>> server, FWIW.  It could be a VM.
> I believe FSF could lend us a server or VM, which would thus be
> “independent”, but we’d need to check.

Yeah that would be nice.  I have not had much luck with FSF folk in the
past though.  I was just thinking about which I believe is
hosted by others.

> Since the project may become quite central, it would be nice if it could
> be FSF-copyrighted.  That’s obviously something to discuss with Andreas,
> but the sooner the better.

If it would become part of Guile I would agree with you.  If it stays
separate then it is less clear.  Copyright assignment is actually not a
precondition to be GNU, AFAIK, and all other things being equal, I would
prefer it if we all kept our copyrights and kept the code as GPLv3+.

Bradley Kuhn writes here:

  Regarding ©AAs, I'd like to note finally that FSF does not require
  ©AAs for all GNU packages. This confusion is so common that I'd like
  to draw attention to it, even thought it's only a tangential point in
  this context. FSF's ©AA is only mandatory, to my knowledge, on those
  GNU packages where either (a) FSF employees developed the first
  versions or (b) the original developers themselves asked to assign
  copyright to FSF, upon their project joining GNU. In all other cases,
  FSF assignment is optional.

I'll ping FSF folk.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]