[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] updated BBN 80211 code?

From: Eric Blossom
Subject: Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] updated BBN 80211 code?
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:20:15 -0700
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)

On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 11:20:06AM -0400, Frank Brickle wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 9:11 AM, Greg Troxel <address@hidden> wrote:
> > So I think the top-level question is whether CGRAN is for code that
> > isn't assigned.  I think that's the only thing that makes sense; people
> > with assignments can more or less work directly in the gnuradio.org
> > repository.
> Maybe there are some overlapping issues here.
> Suppose, for example, I have some code that's more Cognitive-Radio-related
> than Software-Defined-Radio, really. It uses Orange <
> http://www.ailab.si/orange>, which is GPL but not assigned to FSF. At least
> for now it can't go into the GNU Radio tree. Probably it never will.

Do you mean that your code can't go in the repo, or that Orange can't
go in the repo?  I see no problem having code in the repo use Orange.

With regard to the code that's headed for the trunk, we need to
consider the impact of introducing new external dependencies -- an
issue of keeping customers happy, not one of licensing.  Code on the
trunk needs to be properly autoconf'd of course.  The concern about
new external dependencies doesn't apply to dev branches.

> It's also true that this (my) code is experimental and provisional. It's
> nothing more than a steppingstone. (The obvious place to put it would be a
> developer branch, but that's part of the tree.) Perhaps I doubt whether, in
> its current form, it *should* go into the tree. But that's no reason not to
> make it visible and easily accessible, if only as a scaffolding for later
> code destined for the tree.

That would be an excellent use of a developer branch.

In general, no one should be expecting code in a dev branch to be
fully sorted out, or for that matter, even compile.

> There is also some quantity of code which is useful and usable right now,
> but which doesn't currently fit well with the unified installation procedure
> for the GR tree. I'm thinking here primarily of Linux audio subsystem code
> that uses scons.

No problem with having this on a dev branch.

> It seems obvious there has to be a place for GNU Radio code that's GPL but
> will not be assigned to FSF, with certainty. I believe there should also be
> a place for code whose status is *uncertain* -- in short, a place with
> minimal obstacles to publishing early and often.

I believe that's one of the CGRAN goals.


All growth occurs at the border of order and chaos...

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]