I agree with Thiago, John and others. If the code is generated by some tool then that tool should also become "public and free" (option #1). Option #2 would be the next preferred option. I would not support option 3.
BTW, does the code generator run on a Linux based platform (e.g. Ubuntu, ......). Just asking in case option 1 is viable. Ta Felix Freimann "The standard you walk past is the standard you accept." MediaTek USA Email: felix.freimann at mediatek.com Phone: +1 408 526 1899, x88108 Fax: +1 408 526 1991 -----Original Message----- From: iotivity-dev-bounces at lists.iotivity.org [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Light, John J Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 11:05 AM To: Keane, Erich Cc: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org Subject: Re: [dev] Control Manager Another option is a bit more involved, but it might be the best available. Generators are good for early testable code. Done. If we go in the direction of option 2, we should take it one step further and reorganize the code to be more maintainable. Such a process has many characteristics of refactoring, but it is done with more allegiance to the existing code. By doing this up front, we avoid anyone having to see the original generated code, and we avoid botched updates to the generated code before it is rationalized. John -----Original Message----- From: Keane, Erich Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 10:56 AM To: Light, John J Cc: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org; Macieira, Thiago Subject: Re: [dev] Control Manager I agree with John. If at all possible, #1 would be awesome, and it would be worth exploring what it would take to make it public/free. #2 is definitely something I would be OK with, but if the generated code isn't very maintainable, we might be better off just scrapping the code if we can't do #1. #3 seems like a non-starter for me. Any open-source project that starts with "buy a $500 piece of software" isn't very open to me. On Thu, 2015-01-22 at 18:06 +0000, Light, John J wrote: > " make the generator public and free software " > > I think saying why the generator can't be made "public and free" would be a > valuable contribution to this discussion. That knowledge will impact options > 1 and 3. > > " No one will ever regenerate using the closed tool again." > > I've seen unmodifiable code come out of generators. Option 2 is only viable > if the generated code is maintainable. > > "[Worst overall]" I submit the worst overall is saying we are choosing > Option 2, but the only practical way to maintain is to re-run the generator. > > John Light > > > -----Original Message----- > From: iotivity-dev-bounces at lists.iotivity.org > [mailto:iotivity-dev-bounces at lists.iotivity.org] On Behalf Of Thiago > Macieira > Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 9:36 AM > To: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org > Subject: Re: [dev] Control Manager > > On Thursday 22 January 2015 16:55:03 Lankswert, Patrick wrote: > > A large portion of the code was created by a code generator. The > > code generator currently cannot be released as open source. The > > concern a number of people have is that this code base cannot be > > modified by the open source community. If someone wants/needs make a > > change to the model, they do not have access to the generator. If > > someone wants/needs to make changes to the generated code, their > > changes could lost the next time the code generator is run. Without > > a clear path to code modification, there is a tension with the open source > > philosophy. > > We have to supply the sources in the preferred form for modification, so our > leeway is in what that form is. See the Open Source Definition[1], clause 2: > "The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would > modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. > Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not > allowed." > > Options are: > > 1) [best overall] make the generator public and free software; commit > the original sources > > 2) [compromise] commit the generated code and they become sources. No one > will ever regenerate using the closed tool again. > > 3) [worst overall] commit only the original sources and require people to > have the generator. This is worst because it limits adoption of IoTivity to > only people who have the generator. > > [1] http://opensource.org/osd > -- > Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com > Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center > > _______________________________________________ > iotivity-dev mailing list > iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org > https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev > _______________________________________________ > iotivity-dev mailing list > iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org > https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev _______________________________________________ iotivity-dev mailing list iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev ************* Email Confidentiality Notice ******************** The information contained in this e-mail message (including any attachments) may be confidential, proprietary, privileged, or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable laws. It is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). Any use, dissemination, distribution, printing, retaining or copying of this e-mail (including its attachments) by unintended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not an intended recipient of this e-mail, or believe that you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately (by replying to this e-mail), delete any and all copies of this e-mail (including any attachments) from your system, and do not disclose the content of this e-mail to any other person. Thank you!
