From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.unina.it (smtp1.unina.it [192.132.34.61]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6EB88201A76 for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 08:12:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qy0-f171.google.com (mail-qy0-f171.google.com [209.85.216.171]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp1.unina.it (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p4VFTWbj013408 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 17:29:33 +0200 Received: by qyj19 with SMTP id 19so1549826qyj.16 for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 08:29:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.68.146 with SMTP id v18mr3350058qci.207.1306855771919; Tue, 31 May 2011 08:29:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.88.66 with HTTP; Tue, 31 May 2011 08:29:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4629388C-A50B-44DD-A5D7-57B830E1B30A@cc.gatech.edu> References: <5FC6E7BF-B18B-4D41-A80A-84030C79115E@cc.gatech.edu> <4629388C-A50B-44DD-A5D7-57B830E1B30A@cc.gatech.edu> Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 17:29:31 +0200 Message-ID: From: Walter de Donato To: Nick Feamster Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6475f360ed76e04a49412e9 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 15:12:50 -0000 --0016e6475f360ed76e04a49412e9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Why don't bismark-firmwares? Walter 2011/5/31 Nick Feamster > Yes, I think perhaps bismark builds could be kept in a separate repo. > > Not sure what we could call that one. bismark-router? > > -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? > > > > I can try to migrate Bismark to github if Dave didn't start yet doing i= t. > > Probably Bismark builds should be kept apart from it. Ideas? > > > > Walter > > > > 2011/5/31 Nick Feamster > > for the FCC writeup, the requirements are that the source code is > publicly available. > > > > "Any new or improved app must be openly licensed (i.e., open source) an= d > any non-personally identifiable data collected through the software tool > must be made available, upon request, to the public for independent > analysis." > > > > 1. What license are we going to use? > > > > 2. Should we move to github.com today? I am happy to try to migrate th= e > network dashboard code into there. What about: (1) the BISMark firmware > build; (2) BISMark? > > > > For the firmware and management software, I'm actually not sure if the > repositories are currently public? > > > > How should we handle this issue? > > > > -Nick > > _______________________________________________ > > Bismark-devel mailing list > > Bismark-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net > > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bismark-devel > > > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > > > > --0016e6475f360ed76e04a49412e9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Why don't bismark-firmwares?

Walter

2011/5/31 Nick Feamster <feamster@cc.gatech.edu>
Yes, I think perhaps bismark builds could be kept in a separate repo.

Not sure what we could call that one. =A0bismark-router?

-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?
>
> I can try to migrate Bismark to github if Dave didn't start yet do= ing it.
> Probably Bismark builds should be kept apart from it. Ideas?
>
> Walter
>
> 2011/5/31 Nick Feamster <= feamster@cc.gatech.edu>
> for the FCC writeup, the requirements are that the source code is publ= icly available.
>
> "Any new or improved app must be openly licensed (i.e., open sour= ce) and any non-personally identifiable data collected through the software= tool must be made available, upon request, to the public for independent a= nalysis."
>
> 1. What license are we going to use?
>
> 2. Should we move to g= ithub.com today? =A0I am happy to try to migrate the network dashboard = code into there. =A0What about: (1) the BISMark firmware build; (2) BISMark= ?
>
> For the firmware and management software, I'm actually not sure if= the repositories are currently public?
>
> How should we handle this issue?
>
> -Nick
> _______________________________________________
> Bismark-devel mailing list
> Bismark-devel@l= ists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bismark-devel
>
>
>
>
> --
> Walter de Donato, PhD Student
> Dipartimento di Informatica e Sistemistica
> Universit=E0 =A0degli Studi di Napoli "Federico II"
> Via Claudio 21 -- 80125 Napoli (Italy)
> Phone: +39 081 76 83821 - Fax: +39 081 76 83816
> Email: walter.dedonato@uni= na.it
> WWW: http://wpage.unina.it/walter.dedonato
>



--0016e6475f360ed76e04a49412e9--