Subject:
Re: gpal fork
From:
pic00 ####@####.####
Date:
10 Mar 2004 09:30:36 -0000
Message-Id: <404EDA1D.8030308@users.sourceforge.net>
+++
the responses:
> The source tree is removed from the disk's.
> If someone want a copy of it, it's can be requested to recive a backup
> copy until the end of this month.
I don't recall if you're talking about GPL source or not.
+++
The License will be LGPL.
If you are,
then the GPL doesn't limit how long it has to be available for.
The space on the RAID system is limited and the commercial cvs we are
using need a lot of it. The source remain on the backup system.
If this
is not GPL source, then I'm not concerned. Nobody would want source that
they cannot use; there'd be the risk of infection.
> The backup copy will be be delivered
> after the QSO have screened the sources.
I've probably missed something. I've no idea who QSO is. Sorry about that.
+++
I'm not english speaking, it's a abbreviation of a local language word.
The license, comments and docs must be revised prior to give out sources
and library's. Other open source parts was used to improve this branch,
so it's must be controlled accuratly, for licence and copyrigth issues.
> It's has to be noted, that the orginal author have pronunciate it's
> dissense to most of the source changes or coding decisions.
Nothing wrong with that. If you didn't listen (adapt) to why the
original author pronounced dissent, then it's no wonder you have ended
up with a fork. But that doesn't at all relate to the licensing issue.
It would be disingenous to suggest it does.
+++
It's suggest it, but the licence don't matter. The final product is a
case tool for micro programming (not only pic micro). The so called
oogpal is only a (open source) backend on the whole software that is
integrated into other backends. Small C for the lite version, C for the
full and so on. The SW uses other open source Software (scripting
engine, data exchange interfaces) and free available (source) licensed
SW and it's clearly marked out in the planned manual and in the SW. To
most authors or copyright holder is establisht a email correspondece.
The agreement differ from case to case, from coding certain parts,
sponsoring coding or paying a on time licence fee or donation if the
product start up.Personlly I have contributed to many open source project.
Crayg have trasmitted a certain angry of using his software or part in a
commercial product. Initially 10-30% of the orginal software was planned
to use.The software in the actual state it's not functionally compared
to the specification of the Author (Crayg). After a detailed analysis
including precoding, 8% (400-700 lines of bison code) is left over from
the orginal code or modifyed orginal. The percentual values is related
to the amount of orginal source code, not the new one.
After a disput with Craig, and viewd the amount of orginal code,
one have advanced the propose to recoding it from scatch and don't use
the open source code.
The other thing, is, that Craig have given opposite answer to us and to
the mailing list or private mail into the mailing list and that hi ...
After that, I have annunciate a new fork on the list and telled the
question, if someone is interrested.
I have not got any real positive response from the mailing list.
Why try to post and support a open source pice of software that noone
wants or that it's not used?.
This was the reason to abbandone the open source version of oopal
(name will be changed) and close/disapper the sources from the open
source community.Open source is not only open the source but support it,
document it, advertise it, share it ... .
For a certain amount of time, we give the possibility to request the
source if somene will test it or make somewath with it ( respecting the
licence LGPL or GPL)
> Albeit the compiler is full functional to the specifications given
> by the orginal author. In addition, it's have macro capability,
variable
> and static bitfields with slices greather then a bit, float types and
> integer up to 32 bytes with full math support. Arrays to structures of
> bits different sizes is supported. The code generator supports pic
> micros from 12xxx
> to the new 18xxx series including the popular 16xxx types.
But you're just quibbling over features. I'm sure if they were needed
they would eventually be done in the open source author's base sources,
though perhaps not the way you envisaged. To me the development process
is more important than mere features. Arguing from the features to the
license or fork decision is improper.
+++
oogpal was planned only as backend. Initially the idea was to use the
official source with some minor Patches or to improve the official
source remaining 100% compatible. This was not possible for different
reasons. So a fork was the direct consecution.
Craig: I'm curious, I've been developing open source in many projects
over the past ten years, and I understand the accept/reject algorithm
that the original author has to go through ... would you like to show
me an example of the changes these guys were suggesting? Privately. ;-)
All: I observed at the Linux.Conf.Au conference in January that the
microcontroller community in general contains far more people who do
not understand open source, and that I felt conflicts would occur more
frequently on gnupic than on other mailing lists. The frequency has
been low until now; kinda well done?
When a project of mine forks into two or three variants, *then* I am
pleased that I have created something with sufficient community interest
that the community is able to divide *itself* into focus groups.
p.s. keep the reply to sender, reply to list drives me up the wall. ;-)
If reply to sender drives you up the wall, use Reply-All, or whatever
your mail client calls it. If you know when you are posting where you
think the conversation should go, add a Reply-To header. If your mail
software can do neither of these, upgrade it.
--
James Cameron ####@####.#### http://quozl.netrek.org/
Msg by: [<- thread ->] [<- time ->] [<- author ->] | [Threads] [Home]
####@####.####
(c) 1999 Lin-De, Inc
