On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 9:10 PM, Sterling Hughes <[email protected]> wrote:
> First off Justin, thank you! This is very much appreciated. > > Replies are inline. One general comment: I think we should have > MAINTAINERS and a MAINTAINER file. MAINTAINERS should be in larva/ and > MAINTAINER should be in each individual egg. That way if people have a > problem, they know who to contact with questions. Thoughts? I'd say "no". Please do not associate any file or group of files with specific people. Mynewt is owned, managed, developed, and maintained by the *community*. All problems, questions, patches, etc should come to the community. Not a person. If you'd like to create an overall shout-out, then go for it. The Subversion project does this, and uses the same file to track partial commit (as Mynewt has adopted). See: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/trunk/COMMITTERS >... > ISSUE! - Licensed under MCD-ST Liberty SW License Agreement V2 >> > ./hw/bsp/stm32f3discovery/src/arch/cortex_m4/startup_stm32f303xc.s >> ./hw/bsp/stm32f3discovery/src/system_stm32f30x.c >> ./hw/mcu/stm/stm32f3xx/include/mcu/* >> ./hw/mcu/stm/stm32f3xx/src/* >> ./hw/mcu/stm/stm32f4xx/include/mcu/system_stm32f4xx.h >> + a couple of other files >> >> > We can raise this with legal, alternatively we could move the MCU & BSP > definitions to github. People would need to config newt to point at the > github URL (newt add-clutch), but it would get around ASF license issues. > > Personally, I'm leaning heavily towards this option: I think code from the > default ASF repository should be pure, as otherwise people will adopt > packages thinking they are Apache licensed and find out later they are not. It is not allowed to release a package with such a "gotcha" :-) ... so yes, a solution where an *optional* feature can be selected by the user, understanding they are then restricted by the licensing of that optional feature. ... will Mynewt be useful for other platforms besides STM (eg. ARM) without that optional github-based feature? Cheers, -g
