From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from deliverator5.gatech.edu (deliverator5.gatech.edu [130.207.165.165]) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B92B201A76 for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 07:57:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from deliverator5.gatech.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id BA38F1800D9; Tue, 31 May 2011 11:13:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail2.gatech.edu (mail2.gatech.edu [130.207.185.162]) by deliverator5.gatech.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68A4D18015E; Tue, 31 May 2011 11:13:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.1.109] (dsl-185-162-19.dynamic.wa.co.za [41.185.162.19]) (Authenticated sender: nf21@mail.gatech.edu) by mail2.gatech.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 764C2185DD8; Tue, 31 May 2011 11:13:56 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Nick Feamster In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 17:13:45 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <4629388C-A50B-44DD-A5D7-57B830E1B30A@cc.gatech.edu> References: <5FC6E7BF-B18B-4D41-A80A-84030C79115E@cc.gatech.edu> To: Walter de Donato X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Cc: bismark-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Bismark-devel] repo locations + source code license? X-BeenThere: bismark-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: BISMark related software development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 14:57:15 -0000 Yes, I think perhaps bismark builds could be kept in a separate repo. Not sure what we could call that one. bismark-router? =20 -Nick On May 31, 2011, at 5:07 PM, Walter de Donato wrote: > I usually feel comfortable using GPL licenses. > I don't know if in this case choosing the Affero GPL would be more = appropriate. > What do you think? >=20 > I can try to migrate Bismark to github if Dave didn't start yet doing = it. > Probably Bismark builds should be kept apart from it. Ideas? >=20 > Walter >=20 > 2011/5/31 Nick Feamster > for the FCC writeup, the requirements are that the source code is = publicly available. >=20 > "Any new or improved app must be openly licensed (i.e., open source) = and any non-personally identifiable data collected through the software = tool must be made available, upon request, to the public for independent = analysis." >=20 > 1. What license are we going to use? >=20 > 2. Should we move to github.com today? I am happy to try to migrate = the network dashboard code into there. What about: (1) the BISMark = firmware build; (2) BISMark? >=20 > For the firmware and management software, I'm actually not sure if the = repositories are currently public? >=20 > How should we handle this issue? >=20 > -Nick > _______________________________________________ > Bismark-devel mailing list > Bismark-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bismark-devel >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > --=20 > Walter de Donato, PhD Student > Dipartimento di Informatica e Sistemistica > Universit=E0 degli Studi di Napoli "Federico II" > Via Claudio 21 -- 80125 Napoli (Italy) > Phone: +39 081 76 83821 - Fax: +39 081 76 83816 > Email: walter.dedonato@unina.it > WWW: http://wpage.unina.it/walter.dedonato >=20