From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12415 invoked by alias); 28 Mar 2013 18:40:15 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ecos-discuss-help@ecos.sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-discuss-owner@ecos.sourceware.org Received: (qmail 12378 invoked by uid 89); 28 Mar 2013 18:40:08 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from mail-ea0-f195.google.com (HELO mail-ea0-f195.google.com) (209.85.215.195) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 18:40:05 +0000 Received: by mail-ea0-f195.google.com with SMTP id z7so1158782eaf.6 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 11:40:03 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.14.5.137 with SMTP id 9mr12340571eel.30.1364496003340; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 11:40:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.223.89.7 with HTTP; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 11:40:03 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <51546EFC.5050603@dallaway.org.uk> References: <51546EFC.5050603@dallaway.org.uk> Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 18:40:00 -0000 Message-ID: From: Liam Knight To: John Dallaway , ecos discuss Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: [ECOS] Re: Is eCosPro a fork of eCos? X-SW-Source: 2013-03/txt/msg00068.txt.bz2 John, > You obviously feel very strongly about this. The discussion on LinkedIn > was veering off-topic and so I offered to call you and discuss. Many of > the things you are accusing me of are not correct. The LinkedIn forum is > indeed moderated. This is the first time I have ever considered it > appropriate to moderate a discussion. What gave it away that I feel so strongly about being censored:-) There is little enough discussion in the forum and you should be encouraging discussion, not censoring it. I don't see how you can argue that my discussion was off topic. How can you have a conversation about eCosPro without eCosCentric and without giving them the opportunity to respond or explain their position? It is their product and it was after all the topic you started about eCosPro. Surely you have to give eCosCentric the right to join? I simply put forward my viewpoint on why I thought this was unfair, and was censored from providing a response to your comments. As you guessed, that upset me greatly. > > For the record: > >> John started a discussion topic about eCosCentric and whether eCosPro >> is a fork of eCos > > In fact, I have responded to a direct question from you. I have not > mentioned forking at all! No, I agree you did not say fork explicitly, but that is definitely what ".. I would *not* describe the eCosPro RTOS as simply a superset of the eCos RTOS with fixes. " implies. You don't have to say fork - most people would infer fork from that comment. You also make a number of statements regarding eCosPro and end with "I have spoken with eCosCentric at length concerning their business model and market positioning", thereby attributing the comments through implication as theirs. Why else did you add that statement? If you knew eCosCentric's position, why did you not follow up with it. If you could not say or did not know, that statement is confusing and misleading. > >> you appear to be saying you have excluded members of eCosCentric from >> membership of the group because eCosCentric have forked eCos > > No, I am not saying that at all. > >> Also, you infer from your last response to me on the group >> that you have spoken to eCosCentric and that they confirm your >> position that eCosPro is a fork is correct. > > Liam, I cannot see how you can possibly infer that. I know for a fact, > that eCosCentric does not consider eCosPro to be a fork. Then why did you not say it then but say it now? Why did you mention your discussion with eCosCentric at all if not to put forward their response? > > If you want to discuss whether eCosPro is a fork of eCos or not in a > public forum, go right ahead. But please don't put words into my mouth. John, I was under the impression the Linked-In group was a public forum when I joined. Not a closed one that excludes key members of the eCos community that you have selectively excluded. You have the right to respond and defend yourself publicly in this one, a right you have denied eCosCentric in the Linked-In group. > > If you want to discuss why I think it is good to provide a networking > forum for professional users of the free and open source eCos RTOS, John, by your own inference above, and by your exclusion of eCosCentric from the group, you are saying that members of eCosCentric are not professional users of the free and open source RTOS. If they are not users of the free and open source RTOS, and if eCosPro is not a fork, then what are they? What is eCosPro if not a superset? I also now know through private email that you have members of your group who are eCosPro users only. Why are they permitted membership but not eCosCentric? > let's arrange to talk. We are talking now. Why do you want to exclude the other members of this list or your group by taking this offline? Why would you want to share your answers with me and not others? I have one question I am particularly interested in knowing the answer to, a question you have censored on the group and refused to answer here as well. It is a question I am sure many of the group members would also want to know: Why are members of eCosCentric excluded from the group? They have done a lot for the community in the past and I believe you are treating them unfairly. Somebody has to stand up for them if they will not stand up for themselves. You have a lot of questions to answer in my opinion, not just a select few. LK -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss