A naive question on issues related to code in public repository

A naive question on issues related to code in public repository

[sandeep]

hi ecos maintainers,

while searching for ecos on google, I came across this
link -

http://ecos.sourceware.org/maintainers/assignments.html

that mentions 
---------------------------------------------------
Harrison, David
----
dah@cradle.com
----
Cradle Technologies
----
31 Oct 00
----
Red Hat 	
----
Yes
----
Ecos Ported to the Cradle UMS platform.
---------------------------------------------------

my naive question on this is - since it mentions
copyright assignment by Mr. Harrison, David to Redhat,
shouldn't it have been in public repository for long
then?

i checked cradle site and searched for ecos in there
searchbox, found that they have their toolchain and
ecos sources for their UMS architecture world
downloadable with small registration formality (to
possibly, know their prospective clients and mail the
password for downloaded zipped tools/sources etc.)

Here are the relevant links that I found.

http://www.cradle.com/products/tools/old_dloads_resp.shtm
http://www.cradle.com/products/tools/dloads_resp.shtm

Download Development Tools
http://www.cradle.com/products/tools/mail_form.shtm

In case, people have difficulty accessing the links,
let me know, i can send you the contents of those (as
seen today).

my question is - if copyright assignment has been
signed by some representative of a company and it is
giving that code freely downloadable on their site. it
could better be in public repository?

that might help their hal specific code to be tested
(and if need be, fixed) faster by a larger
developers/testers base and could be beneficial to not
only the company?

since every organisation thinks only of their
benefits,
i wonder what stops them from trying to get in public
ecos repository? is it that, they need to give a
separate copyright assignment to ecoscentric now??

i am trying to understand the non-technical aspects of
things, in case i need that in the course of my
responsibilities in some other company.

regards
sandeep

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

Re: A naive question on issues related to code in public repository

[Andrew Lunn]

On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 03:44:36AM -0700, sandeep wrote:
> hi ecos maintainers,
> 
> while searching for ecos on google, I came across this
> link -
> 
> http://ecos.sourceware.org/maintainers/assignments.html
> 
> that mentions 
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Harrison, David
> ----
> dah@cradle.com
> ----
> Cradle Technologies
> ----
> 31 Oct 00
> ----
> Red Hat 	
> ----
> Yes
> ----
> Ecos Ported to the Cradle UMS platform.
> ---------------------------------------------------

31 October 2000 is before my time, so i cannot speak about this
specific case. Maybe it was never actually submitted? Maybe the
quality was not good enought at the time? Maybe the maintainers were
overloaded with other work and never got around to it?

> since every organisation thinks only of their benefits, i wonder
> what stops them from trying to get in public ecos repository? is it
> that, they need to give a separate copyright assignment to
> ecoscentric now??

The RedHat assignment should still be valid. They could optionally
assign it to eCosCentric if they wanted to. They at least need to
approach us and submit their code again. If its been kept up to date
with anoncvs and the code is of good quality and there is somebody who
will make the changes we suggest it could be added to anoncvs.

The resent incorperation of the ATMEL JTST port is a good example of
how it should be done. The code was good to start with so my comments
and requests for change were mostly minor. Andrea was quick to respond
which also realy helped.

        Andrew

Re: A naive question on issues related to code in public repository

[Nick Garnett]

Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch> writes:

> On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 03:44:36AM -0700, sandeep wrote:
> > hi ecos maintainers,
> > 
> > while searching for ecos on google, I came across this
> > link -
> > 
> > http://ecos.sourceware.org/maintainers/assignments.html
> > 
> > that mentions 
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> > Harrison, David
> > ----
> > dah@cradle.com
> > ----
> > Cradle Technologies
> > ----
> > 31 Oct 00
> > ----
> > Red Hat 	
> > ----
> > Yes
> > ----
> > Ecos Ported to the Cradle UMS platform.
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> 
> 31 October 2000 is before my time, so i cannot speak about this
> specific case. Maybe it was never actually submitted? Maybe the
> quality was not good enought at the time? Maybe the maintainers were
> overloaded with other work and never got around to it?

I did the Cradle port while at RedHat during April 2001.  Cradle had a
very primitive stab at the HAL which is presumably what this
assignment covers.  The HAL I did was written from scratch, not using
any of the original Cradle code.

Ownership of the Cradle HAL is somewhat confused since it went to
Cradle under the old RHEPL. It was also, at the time, covered by a
whole bunch of NDAs. Both RedHat and Cradle have some claim over the
HAL and it would require both of them to agree to contribute it to the
public repository.

So, I don't think that this assignment has any meaning any more. 

-- 
Nick Garnett                    eCos Kernel Architect
http://www.ecoscentric.com/     The eCos and RedBoot experts

Re: A naive question on issues related to code in public repository

[Alex Schuilenburg]

Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 03:44:36AM -0700, sandeep wrote:
> 
>>hi ecos maintainers,
>>
>>while searching for ecos on google, I came across this
>>link -
>>
>>http://ecos.sourceware.org/maintainers/assignments.html
>>
>>that mentions 
>>---------------------------------------------------
>>Harrison, David
>>----
>>dah@cradle.com
>>----
>>Cradle Technologies
>>----
>>31 Oct 00
>>----
>>Red Hat 	
>>----
>>Yes
>>----
>>Ecos Ported to the Cradle UMS platform.
>>---------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 31 October 2000 is before my time, so i cannot speak about this
> specific case. Maybe it was never actually submitted? Maybe the
> quality was not good enought at the time? Maybe the maintainers were
> overloaded with other work and never got around to it?

Actually, none of the above.  It was done by us while at Cygnus/Red Hat. 
  It was never finished for various reasons so was never put into the 
mainstream respository.  Cradle were given a copy of the unfinished 
version and that has been floating around.


> 
> 
>>since every organisation thinks only of their benefits, i wonder
>>what stops them from trying to get in public ecos repository? is it
>>that, they need to give a separate copyright assignment to
>>ecoscentric now??
> 
> 
> The RedHat assignment should still be valid. They could optionally
> assign it to eCosCentric if they wanted to. They at least need to
> approach us and submit their code again. If its been kept up to date
> with anoncvs and the code is of good quality and there is somebody who
> will make the changes we suggest it could be added to anoncvs.

Actually, it is more complicated than that.  The eCos port for Cradle is 
version 1.x era, the license of which is incompatible with the current 
2.x license.  Cradle have been made aware of this...

-- Alex


> 
> The resent incorperation of the ATMEL JTST port is a good example of
> how it should be done. The code was good to start with so my comments
> and requests for change were mostly minor. Andrea was quick to respond
> which also realy helped.
> 
>         Andrew

Re: A naive question on issues related to code in public repository

[sandeep]

Nick Garnett says --

> I did the Cradle port while at RedHat during April
> 2001.  Cradle had a very primitive stab at the HAL 
> which is presumably what this assignment covers. 
The 
> HAL I did was written from scratch, not using
> any of the original Cradle code.

and the floating copy you mention, I had been
maintaining it up-to-date with latest cvs, as per
current employer's needs, with couple of bugfixes and
optimisations at couple of places.

looking at the copy that i had downloaded from their
site, apart from fixes/optimisations to it, there are
some small things that need to be got in shape, that's
what i think, i might be wrong. i don't know much of
ecos either.

i guess, there would have been some issues at some
level, oherwise the organisation for which i am
working (at the moment of writing this mail) is quite
supportive of open-source initiatives, and i believe
they can possibly maintain ecos for cradle's
architecture too and also help in getting it into
public cvs repository.

personally, i would find it good for ecos to have
inclusion of this hal also in public cvs repository,
for this hal would get better treatment and as a
freelance programmer/consultant or employee of some
right kind of organisation, i can contribute to
community.

I don't know if mentioning having worked on cradle
architecture (after they are making it available on
their site) though using non-organisation account will
be termed by organisation people as some kind of
violation of some NDAs which they might have/had in
past? as per that logic, even this kind of mention in
resume posted on internet or sent to someone will also
be termed as violation.

sandeep


		

Re: A naive question on issues related to code in public repository

[Alex Schuilenburg]

sandeep wrote:
[...]
> looking at the copy that i had downloaded from their
> site, apart from fixes/optimisations to it, there are
> some small things that need to be got in shape, that's
> what i think, i might be wrong. i don't know much of
> ecos either.
> 
> i guess, there would have been some issues at some
> level, oherwise the organisation for which i am
> working (at the moment of writing this mail) is quite
> supportive of open-source initiatives, and i believe
> they can possibly maintain ecos for cradle's
> architecture too and also help in getting it into
> public cvs repository.
> 
> personally, i would find it good for ecos to have
> inclusion of this hal also in public cvs repository,
> for this hal would get better treatment and as a
> freelance programmer/consultant or employee of some
> right kind of organisation, i can contribute to
> community.

While it would be good to get the cradle port into the public CVS 
repository, as per my previous email, this is not possible unless you 
either wrote a new port from scratch or Cradle come to some arrangement 
with Red Hat regarding the licensing of that port.  However, that should 
not stop you contrinuting to the community in other ways :-)

The cradle port you mention is under the eCos 1.x license which is 
incompatible with the version 2.0 license, so it can never get into the 
CVS repository unless the license is changed.

And as an FYI (since you appeared to have missed Nick's comments :-) 
Nick Garnett is the person who did the original port of Cradle to eCos, 
with small bits by Jonathan Larmour. So Nick is *very* familiar with the 
Cradle architecture. The only reason the code is not already being 
maintained in the CVS repository is exactly for the reasons stated above.

-- Alex

Re: A naive question on issues related to code in public repository

[sandeep]

Alex Schuilenburg wrote:
> While it would be good to get the cradle port into the public CVS 
> repository, as per my previous email, this is not possible unless you 
> either wrote a new port from scratch
what does writing from scratch mean? there are hal specific isr/dsr, 
macros/functions to be provided in hal. when you save the context of 
thread/interrupt, initialise the thread etc. you will be be doing in standard 
steps needed on the architecture - things you will be changing, will be order of 
saving the registers, or using some alternate instructions. in case of some 
architectures you might not even have this flexibility.

even after rewrite it will turn out to be same. ecos lays out certain 
conventions for naming macros/variables/functions/typedefs etc. so things won't 
be changing there. you will moreorless write same things.

if you modify some files beyound certain extent, may be you can call them as 
almost rewritten (like for modifications beyound certain extent, I have seen 
mention of copyright assignment issues on the list).

your opinions on above and notion of rewrite, would be helpful for me to 
understand nontechnicalities of things better.

i find it amazing, how the term 'rewriting' is used to glorify what would have 
created a problem situation for me in student life assignments. ;)

i wonder if you folks can write from scratch again or rewrite from memories (but 
  I don't see much point and reason in you doing it out of charity for some 
hardware). but in case you get your rewrite in public cvs, past experience of 
me/my current organisaton should be of use.

I can check out possibilities for some sort of rewrite with my current 
employers, in case you folks are not doing it. but there should be some 
direct/indirect benefit for organisation to put efforts in this direction, even 
for releasing to public cvs.

> However, that should not stop you contrinuting to the community in other ways :-)
that I have already been, in whatever little ways i can, on different lists.

> And as an FYI (since you appeared to have missed Nick's comments :-) 
> Nick Garnett is the person who did the original port of Cradle to eCos, 
i know that even before recent thread. as I gather from earlier discussions, 
possibly this port was not thoroughly tested (unfinished work), that's what 
would have left certain bugs, little but at crucial places.

i found nick's work quite fine (improvements here and there are possible in any 
work over a period of time with usage), something that has got me accoclades of 
'being obsessed'.

can hal/doings-in-hal be looked at in isolation with rest of the eCos?

regards
sandeep

Re: A naive question on issues related to code in public repository

[Alex Schuilenburg]

sandeep wrote:
> Alex Schuilenburg wrote:
> 
>> While it would be good to get the cradle port into the public CVS 
>> repository, as per my previous email, this is not possible unless you 
>> either wrote a new port from scratch
> 
> what does writing from scratch mean? there are hal specific isr/dsr, 
> macros/functions to be provided in hal. when you save the context of 
> thread/interrupt, initialise the thread etc. you will be be doing in 
> standard steps needed on the architecture - things you will be changing, 
> will be order of saving the registers, or using some alternate 
> instructions. in case of some architectures you might not even have this 
> flexibility.

It means throwing away the existing port, starting the port again and 
not referring to the old sources.


> even after rewrite it will turn out to be same. ecos lays out certain 
> conventions for naming macros/variables/functions/typedefs etc. so 
> things won't be changing there. you will moreorless write same things.

Yes, the functionality will be the same and indeed much of the code may 
resemble the old code.  However, the new port should still not be based 
on the old code otherwise it could be seen as a derivative and hence we 
get back to the licensing issues.


> 
> if you modify some files beyound certain extent, may be you can call 
> them as almost rewritten (like for modifications beyound certain extent, 
> I have seen mention of copyright assignment issues on the list).

No you cannot call modified code as being rewritten, even if it is 
unrecognisable. You are still basing the new code on the old code, using 
the old code as a template.  This is derived code, and as such will fall 
under the derived code's license.

You need to consider a clean room implementation, and given your 
previous exposure to the old code, you will most likely be tainted. Some 
may argue that because of this, you may not be a suitable for a rewrite.

Unfortunately a lot of this is open to interpretation so I will take the 
cowards way out and leave it to the maintainers to specify what needs to 
be done to create a new port suitable for import to anoncvs that is not 
tainted by the older code and hence license.

The best route, and maybe only route in your case, would be for Cradle 
and Red Hat to re-release the code under the version 2 license.


[...]
>> And as an FYI (since you appeared to have missed Nick's comments :-) 
>> Nick Garnett is the person who did the original port of Cradle to eCos, 
> 
> i know that even before recent thread. as I gather from earlier 
> discussions, possibly this port was not thoroughly tested (unfinished 
> work), that's what would have left certain bugs, little but at crucial 
> places.
> 
> i found nick's work quite fine (improvements here and there are possible 
> in any work over a period of time with usage), something that has got me 
> accoclades of 'being obsessed'.
> 
> can hal/doings-in-hal be looked at in isolation with rest of the eCos?

This I cannot answer and will leave to a maintainer..

-- Alex

Re: A naive question on issues related to code in public repository

[sandeep]

Alex Schuilenburg wrote:
> You need to consider a clean room implementation, and given your 
> previous exposure to the old code, you will most likely be tainted. Some 
> may argue that because of this, you may not be a suitable for a rewrite.
Thanks a lot for your explanations of the issues and suggestions. I myself find 
me unsuitable as re-writer in this case as I have got tainted enough due to 
loong exposure. :)

> cowards way out and leave it to the maintainers to specify what needs to 
> be done to create a new port suitable for import to anoncvs that is not 
> tainted by the older code and hence license.
that will be quite appropriate.

regards
sandeep

Re: A naive question on issues related to code in public repository

[sandeep]

Nick Garnett wrote:
> I did the Cradle port while at RedHat during April 2001.  Cradle had a
> very primitive stab at the HAL which is presumably what this
> assignment covers.  The HAL I did was written from scratch, not using
> any of the original Cradle code.
are you referring to the primitive non-gcc compiler smp-ecos POC stab as 
'original Cradle code' ?

regards
sandeep

Re: A naive question on issues related to code in public repository

[Nick Garnett]

sandeep <shimple0@yahoo.com> writes:

> Nick Garnett wrote:
> > I did the Cradle port while at RedHat during April 2001.  Cradle had a
> > very primitive stab at the HAL which is presumably what this
> > assignment covers.  The HAL I did was written from scratch, not using
> > any of the original Cradle code.
> are you referring to the primitive non-gcc compiler smp-ecos POC stab
> as 'original Cradle code' ?

To be honest I don't really remember, it was a long time ago. I guess
it must have been compiled with their compiler, since part of the work
we did was to produce a GCC toolchain. I think I just skimmed through
it and decided that it had little to contribute to our effort.

-- 
Nick Garnett                    eCos Kernel Architect
http://www.ecoscentric.com/     The eCos and RedBoot experts