Re: [ng-spice-devel] Proposal for a letter to Richard Newton
Hi all,
My only suggestion is a reordering of the questions. I think Q3
should be first, and then Q2, Q1 and then Q4.
Ciao,
Erik
PS : One type marked below.
Paolo Nenzi wrote:
>
> What do you think ?
>
> Dear Prof. Newton,
>
> We have read your mail about working together on spice3 sources and we
> would ask you some details.
>
> 1) As you may have seen on our web site, we are aiming at the
> development of a GPL covered circuit simulator based on spice3.
> This means that, if UCB does not want to worn on spice3 anymore,
^^^^^
Typo ---------------------------------------> work
> there will be a split in the development tree.
> How would UCB react to a (very) possible split in the development
> tree ?
>
> 2) This question is a consequence of the first. Does UCB wish to
> proceed the developing of spice, after porting the sources to
> an open model ?
>
> 3) We would like a clarification on 'make the code compliant with Open
> Source'. What exactly is required? Adding a copyright header to
> each file is easy to do. What source modification is are you
> referring to ?
>
> 4) What about using the current ng-spice development tree ?
>
> Regards,
>
> .....
--
+-------------------------------------------------+
Erik de Castro Lopo erikd@zip.com.au
+-------------------------------------------------+
Will the last person leaving Redmond please turn off all the lights.
Partial thread listing: