This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the eCos project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

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

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

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]