From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.unina.it (smtp2.unina.it [192.132.34.62]) (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 3D1DD201A76 for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 07:50:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qw0-f43.google.com (mail-qw0-f43.google.com [209.85.216.43]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp2.unina.it (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p4VF74L6028808 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 17:07:05 +0200 Received: by qwf6 with SMTP id 6so3210522qwf.16 for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 08:07:04 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.43.90 with SMTP id v26mr4346859qce.169.1306854423902; Tue, 31 May 2011 08:07:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.88.66 with HTTP; Tue, 31 May 2011 08:07:03 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5FC6E7BF-B18B-4D41-A80A-84030C79115E@cc.gatech.edu> References: <5FC6E7BF-B18B-4D41-A80A-84030C79115E@cc.gatech.edu> Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 17:07:03 +0200 Message-ID: From: Walter de Donato To: Nick Feamster Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00148536e724b5bc1104a493c129 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 14:50:23 -0000 --00148536e724b5bc1104a493c129 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 it. 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 publicl= y > available. > > "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." > > 1. What license are we going to use? > > 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? > > 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 > > --=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 --00148536e724b5bc1104a493c129 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I usually feel comfortable using GPL licenses.
I don't know if in t= his case choosing the Affero GPL would be more appropriate.
What = do you think?

I can try to migrate Bismark to github if D= ave didn't start yet doing it.
Probably Bismark builds should be kept apart from it. Ideas?

Walter

2011/5/31 N= ick Feamster <feamster@cc.gatech.edu>
for the FCC writeup, the requirements are t= hat the source code is publicly available.

"Any new or improved app must be openly licensed (i.e., open source) a= nd any non-personally identifiable data collected through the software tool= must be made available, upon request, to the public for independent analys= is."

1. What license are we going to use?

2. Should we move to github= .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@lists.= bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bismark-devel




--
Walter de Donato, PhD S= tudent
Dipartimento di Informatica e Sistemistica
Universit=E0=A0 deg= li Studi di Napoli "Federico II"
Via Claudio 21 -- 80125 Napol= i (Italy)
Phone: +39 081 76 83821 - Fax: +39 081 76 83816
Email: walter.dedonato@unina.itWWW: = http://wpage.unina.it/walter.dedonato

--00148536e724b5bc1104a493c129--