I agree with John. If at all possible, #1 would be awesome, and it would be worth exploring what it would take to make it public/free.
#2 is definitely something I would be OK with, but if the generated code isn't very maintainable, we might be better off just scrapping the code if we can't do #1. #3 seems like a non-starter for me. Any open-source project that starts with "buy a $500 piece of software" isn't very open to me. On Thu, 2015-01-22 at 18:06 +0000, Light, John J wrote: > " make the generator public and free software " > > I think saying why the generator can't be made "public and free" would be a > valuable contribution to this discussion. That knowledge will impact options > 1 and 3. > > " No one will ever regenerate using the closed tool again." > > I've seen unmodifiable code come out of generators. Option 2 is only viable > if the generated code is maintainable. > > "[Worst overall]" I submit the worst overall is saying we are choosing > Option 2, but the only practical way to maintain is to re-run the generator. > > John Light > > > -----Original Message----- > From: iotivity-dev-bounces at lists.iotivity.org [mailto:iotivity-dev-bounces > at lists.iotivity.org] On Behalf Of Thiago Macieira > Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 9:36 AM > To: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org > Subject: Re: [dev] Control Manager > > On Thursday 22 January 2015 16:55:03 Lankswert, Patrick wrote: > > A large portion of the code was created by a code generator. The code > > generator currently cannot be released as open source. The concern a > > number of people have is that this code base cannot be modified by the > > open source community. If someone wants/needs make a change to the > > model, they do not have access to the generator. If someone > > wants/needs to make changes to the generated code, their changes could > > lost the next time the code generator is run. Without a clear path to > > code modification, there is a tension with the open source philosophy. > > We have to supply the sources in the preferred form for modification, so our > leeway is in what that form is. See the Open Source Definition[1], clause 2: > "The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would > modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. > Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not > allowed." > > Options are: > > 1) [best overall] make the generator public and free software; commit the > original sources > > 2) [compromise] commit the generated code and they become sources. No one > will ever regenerate using the closed tool again. > > 3) [worst overall] commit only the original sources and require people to > have the generator. This is worst because it limits adoption of IoTivity to > only people who have the generator. > > [1] http://opensource.org/osd > -- > Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com > Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center > > _______________________________________________ > iotivity-dev mailing list > iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org > https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev > _______________________________________________ > iotivity-dev mailing list > iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org > https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev
