From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3650 invoked by alias); 17 Jan 2012 10:38:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 3639 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Jan 2012 10:38:55 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from hagrid.ecoscentric.com (HELO mail.ecoscentric.com) (212.13.207.197) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 10:38:17 +0000 Received: from localhost (hagrid.ecoscentric.com [127.0.0.1]) by mail.ecoscentric.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 009522F7800F for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 10:38:15 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.ecoscentric.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (hagrid.ecoscentric.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W7N18ypbq7Tr; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 10:38:10 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (farm.ecoscentric.com [62.249.226.156]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: paulb@ecoscentric.com) by mail.ecoscentric.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A2D12F78008 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 10:38:10 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <4F154F95.30203@ecoscentric.com> Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 10:38:00 -0000 From: Paul Beskeen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ecos-devel@ecos.sourceware.org Subject: Re: Gnutools: consideration for upgrade to GCC 4.6 References: <4F106345.4080902@siva.com.mk> <4F11574D.9070002@dallaway.org.uk> <4F154606.3050507@kuantic.com> In-Reply-To: <4F154606.3050507@kuantic.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact ecos-devel-help@ecos.sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-devel-owner@ecos.sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-01/txt/msg00026.txt.bz2 On 17/01/2012 09:57, Bernard Fouché wrote: > Le 16/01/2012 22:11, Sergei Gavrikov a écrit : >> On Mon, 16 Jan 2012, Sergei Gavrikov wrote: >> >>> I hope I have convinced you and Stano that I did not suggest to "close" >>> eCos sources by __ecos__ checks. More that to propagate that built-in >>> definition is only a few lines for GCC patch and if that is issue I am >>> ready to withdraw my "I like their built-in" :-) >> Nobody (me too) said (thought) about: >> >> http://www.ecoscentric.com/trademark_usage.shtml >> >> AIANL. So, I actually withdraw my "wish" as [eCos] is registered >> trademark and anyone would use our patches and abuse the word. >> >> Sergei > > Being able to identify/check the toolchain used seems a very good idea. > Why not ask eCosCentric about the legal issue? They already make a > toolchain available for public eCos, that can be installed with the > installation tool (see http://ecos.sourceware.org/getstart.html) . IMHO > it is in the interest of eCos to avoid having its public image altered > because of bugs that are related to the toolchain and not eCos itself. On the trademark front there is no issue with the public eCos release using this as required (see 1.1.1/4 section in the above referenced URL). On a personal note, I would however avoid the use of __ecos__ in the toolchain for all the reasons that Grant has already pointed out. Critically, you don't want to limit users to a specific set of toolchains. Regards, Paul. -- Paul Beskeen, Chairman & Director of Engineering http://www.ecoscentric.com/