Hi Thiago, License perspective, better to get the decision from ISG. I believe, UPnP bridge should be out of the IoTivity project scope according to IoTivity project definition.
BR, Uze Choi -----Original Message----- From: Thiago Macieira [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2016 11:06 PM To: ???(Uze Choi) Cc: 'Bell, Richard S'; iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org Subject: Re: [dev] Repository for IoTivity UPnP Bridge Hello Uze You are correct: it cannot be part of the iotivity.git repository. That's why we asked for a new one. On quarta-feira, 9 de mar?o de 2016 17:35:49 PST ???(Uze Choi) wrote: > Hello, Thiago > Sorry again for the late questioning. > > According to the last ISG meeting, non-Apache(even Linking time) code > need to be handled in the separate repository. which means they are > not in the scope of IoTivity project which is governed by Apache2.0. > However, this case looks want to be part of IoTivity project but not > follows Apache license eventually. > > I'd like make this rule clear to prepare the other license conflicting > source code contribution such as AllSeen and so on later. If I'm wrong > in somewhere, please correct me. > > BR, Uze Choi > -----Original Message----- > From: Bell, Richard S [mailto:richard.s.bell at intel.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2016 8:46 AM > To: uzchoi at samsung.com; Macieira, Thiago > Cc: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org > Subject: RE: [dev] Repository for IoTivity UPnP Bridge > > Hi Uze, > I would think that we should have a bridge folder and individual > folders for each bridge (i.e.: /iotivity/bridges/upnp-bridge, > /iotivity/bridges/allseen-bridge, and etc.). I agree we should have > individual maintainers for each bridge since they will be most > familiar the code. > > Thanks, > Rick Bell > Senior Software Engineer > OTC UPnP/DLNA Software Team > Intel Corporation > (503) 712 8209 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ???(Uze Choi) [mailto:uzchoi at samsung.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 8, 2016 12:14 AM > To: Macieira, Thiago <thiago.macieira at intel.com> > Cc: Bell, Richard S <richard.s.bell at intel.com>; > iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org Subject: RE: [dev] Repository for > IoTivity UPnP Bridge > > Hi Thiago, > > My question was whether UPnP Bridge project is same level of IoTivit > project such as security, primitive service, discovery & connectivity, > iotivity cloud and iotivity-js and so on. You answer looks like UPnP > Bridge is also a kind of project and not the part of a specific project. > understandable... > > Anyway, overall level normalization of project looks required later. > Some projects cover very huge scope, others do small. > > BR, Uze Choi > -----Original Message----- > From: Thiago Macieira [mailto:thiago.macieira at intel.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2016 10:18 AM > To: ???(Uze Choi) > Cc: 'Bell, Richard S'; iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org > Subject: Re: [dev] Repository for IoTivity UPnP Bridge > > Em ter?a-feira, 8 de mar?o de 2016, ?s 09:37:04 PST, ???(Uze Choi) escreveu: > > Thiago/Bell, > > > > A couple of small questions/concerns I have, .This is entitled as > > one of IoTivity project? > > Hello Uze > > I'm not sure what you mean by "entitled". Can you clarify? > > It should be part of the IoTivity project, even if it's not inside the > iotivity.git repository. > > .If yes, can we call it IoTivity project in case of Out of the > > IoTivity repository. > > I don't see why we couldn't. > > > .If we create other bridges such as AllSeen, MQTT, DDS and so on > > later, should we set the other maintainer for each case? > > I think so. We need someone to care about that code. Some of those may > be part of the main Discovery & Connectivity, but others won't. > > -- > Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com > Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
