On 27/9/21 6:17 pm, Christian MAUDERER wrote:
> Hello,
>
> if I didn't miss a documentation patch regarding this, the topic is still
> open.
> I delayed it a bit because I didn't had the time back then and I think Chris
> was
> quite busy too at that time. I hope now is the right time to re-star
Hello,
if I didn't miss a documentation patch regarding this, the topic is
still open. I delayed it a bit because I didn't had the time back then
and I think Chris was quite busy too at that time. I hope now is the
right time to re-start the discussion.
Am 21.07.21 um 08:58 schrieb Chris Joh
Am 21.07.21 um 10:31 schrieb Chris Johns:
On 21/7/21 5:34 pm, Christian MAUDERER wrote:
Hello Chris,
Am 21.07.21 um 09:22 schrieb Chris Johns:
On 21/7/21 5:05 pm, Christian MAUDERER wrote:
Hello,
I don't object to clear rules. At the moment it's a bit of a mix.
Yes I understand and I think
On 21/7/21 5:34 pm, Christian MAUDERER wrote:
> Hello Chris,
>
> Am 21.07.21 um 09:22 schrieb Chris Johns:
>> On 21/7/21 5:05 pm, Christian MAUDERER wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I don't object to clear rules. At the moment it's a bit of a mix.
>>
>> Yes I understand and I think the line you posted in
Am 21.07.21 um 09:34 schrieb Christian MAUDERER:
Hello Chris,
Am 21.07.21 um 09:22 schrieb Chris Johns:
On 21/7/21 5:05 pm, Christian MAUDERER wrote:
Hello,
I don't object to clear rules. At the moment it's a bit of a mix.
Yes I understand and I think the line you posted in the patch is fin
Hello Chris,
Am 21.07.21 um 09:22 schrieb Chris Johns:
On 21/7/21 5:05 pm, Christian MAUDERER wrote:
Hello,
I don't object to clear rules. At the moment it's a bit of a mix.
Yes I understand and I think the line you posted in the patch is fine as is, it
just needs to be separate from the lic
On 21/7/21 5:05 pm, Christian MAUDERER wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I don't object to clear rules. At the moment it's a bit of a mix.
Yes I understand and I think the line you posted in the patch is fine as is, it
just needs to be separate from the license text because it could taint it and we
need to av
Hello,
I don't object to clear rules. At the moment it's a bit of a mix. Some
examples of what I have found (mainly in PowerPC):
Above the copyright line:
https://git.rtems.org/rtems/tree/bsps/powerpc/ss555/start/vectors.S
https://git.rtems.org/rtems/tree/bsps/powerpc/ss555/start/vectors_init
On 21/7/21 3:51 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> On 21/07/2021 02:46, Chris Johns wrote:
>> I think we need some guidelines. I do not agree with URL links, email
>> addresses,
>> phone numbers or street addreses appearing in the source. I also think a
>> sponsor
>> acknowledgement is never updated or
On 21/07/2021 02:46, Chris Johns wrote:
On 21/7/21 6:47 am, Gedare Bloom wrote:
This seems fine to me. We don't have any standard way to document this
kind of attribution. However, we have had individual authors add their
names below their company's copyright. It might make sense to put the
spon
On 21/7/21 6:47 am, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> This seems fine to me. We don't have any standard way to document this
> kind of attribution. However, we have had individual authors add their
> names below their company's copyright. It might make sense to put the
> sponsorship part beneath the copyright
This seems fine to me. We don't have any standard way to document this
kind of attribution. However, we have had individual authors add their
names below their company's copyright. It might make sense to put the
sponsorship part beneath the copyright of the sponsored
company/person? Not a big deal,
Onto Innovations Incorporated originally sponsored the development of
this BSP. This patch adds the attribution for it.
The patch also fixes an old license header in bspstarthooks.c that was
accidentally copied into that file.
---
bsps/arm/imxrt/console/console.c | 1 +
bsps/arm/imx
13 matches
Mail list logo
