Re: [ECOS] Who's maintaining CVS

[Jani Monoses <jani at iv dot ro>]

>  >
>  >
>  > So if the ecos specific parts were included in the lwIP project would
>  > there be no problems?
> 
> Assuming it is a natural part of lwIP. It doesn't make any difference to 
> do stuff like add a patch to eCos as a file inside lwIP. Or put a package 
> inside lwIP and say "copy this to your eCos tree" or whatever. Just 
> because it's policy doesn't mean we're stupid about these things ;-P.

'natural part' I see. I was just trying to understand what you mean by 
the other projects responsability.Well lwIP already has 3 arch specific 
subdirs and ecos could well be one of them.But I did not exactly understand your 
paragraph above.Is it a yes or a no ;) ?

> 
>  > What if I fork lwIP and put all my changes under
>  > the same copyright? Would that count as an 'established project'?
> 
> Now you're really just trying to work around the letter of the policy, 
> rather than the spirit. 

Of course I am because the letter is what lawyers look at :)
 
> 
> It's nothing to do with Red Hat as such. It's a matter of policy. The more 
> policy gets abused, the more exceptions exist. The more exceptions exist, 
> the more chance there is a weakness in the legal integrity of the code base.

But why is this policy necessary for ecos when most open source projects can well
do without it?I am not saying it's not necessary but really ask: why?

Thanks for trying to make me see the light :)

Jani.

-- 
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://sources.redhat.com/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/ecos-discuss