From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13485 invoked by alias); 30 Aug 2004 07:58:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ecos-maintainers-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-maintainers-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 13458 invoked from network); 30 Aug 2004 07:57:58 -0000 Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 07:58:00 -0000 From: Andrew Lunn To: Bart Veer Cc: jifl@ecoscentric.com, ecos-maintainers@ecos.sourceware.org Subject: Re: Contribution of a =?iso-8859-1?Q?DHCP_?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?server_=28=B5DHCP=29?= port to eCOS Message-ID: <20040830075713.GA7542@biferten.ma.tech.ascom.ch> References: <412D010D.60603@eCosCentric.com> <20040825222323.71CCBEC10C@delenn.bartv.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040825222323.71CCBEC10C@delenn.bartv.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg00041.txt.bz2 > jifl> To other maintainers, I have a suggestion in general: to add > jifl> a new and separate CVS module called ecos-gpl, which has > jifl> full GPL'd (or LGPL'd) stuff in. This is not checked out by > jifl> default, nor would the packages in it be part of the > jifl> standard set in a full eCos release (not without explicit > jifl> user effort so they can recognise the license implications). [Snip] > A separate repository is a sensible minimal requirement. We do not > want users to accidentally include GPL'd code in their application > without realizing it. However I don't think a separate repository is > sufficient, we also want explicit support in the host-side tools. > There is already limited support for this in ecosadmin when installing > a new package, but I don't think that is good enough. I haven't > thought through the issues in detail, but two possibilities spring to > mind: > > 1) add a new CDL property license, probably only usable inside a > cdl_package. This would take an arbitrary string, so e.g.: > > cdl_package CYGPKG_SOMETHING { > license GPL > ... > } > > or > > cdl_package CYGPKG_OTHER { > license "Proprietary, see http://www.xyzzy.com/OTHER/license.html" > ... > } I like this, but i think we are only addressing one of the two issues. Ownership is the second issue. Code which is not owned by RedHat, eCosCentric or the maintainers should also be placed into a separate CVS tree. Its then clear what we can change the license on and what not. JFFS2 and Gary's NAND flash driver thus should be in the second tree, even though they both have mod GPL licenses. I would suggest an "owners" property which is an arbitrary string. It would take values like: owners "FSF" or owners "Redhat+Maintainers" or owners "Diverse" The last case being used for example for jffs2 and the NAND flash driver. Andrew