Submissions to the OFW project are supposed to be bound by the contributor's agreement:
http://windows.openib.org/openib/contribute.aspx Contributing code under anything but a BSD license violates condition 1, though there shouldn't be issues with dual licenses as long as one of the available licenses is a BSD license. In any case, we're not talking about putting the pthreads library in source or binary form in the OFW SVN, right? We're just talking about having OpenSM link to the pthreads library that is out-of-tree. So the question is whether there are any licensing issues with having a BSD code include an out-of-tree LGPL file that would affect the ability to retain the BSD license on the OpenSM files. I can see this causing problems for builds, as people would need to find/install the pthreads library before OpenSM would build successfully. -Fab -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hal Rosenstock Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 10:38 AM To: ofw@lists.openfabrics.org Cc: Gilad Shainer; OPENIB Subject: [ofw] [Fwd: Re: [openib-general] [Fwd: Re: win related [was: Re:[PATCH 1/2] opensm: sigusr1: syslog() fixes]]] Also, looping in the OpenFabrics Windows email list on this. -- Hal -----Forwarded Message----- From: Hal Rosenstock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Tzachi Dar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: OPENIB <openib-general@openib.org>, Gilad Shainer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [openib-general] [Fwd: Re: win related [was: Re: [PATCH 1/2] opensm: sigusr1: syslog() fixes]] Date: 20 Feb 2007 13:21:38 -0500 Hi Tzachi, On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 16:24, Tzachi Dar wrote: > See bellow. I would like to get back to trying to close on this discussion. > Thanks > Tzachi > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Sasha Khapyorsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 9:47 PM > > To: Tzachi Dar > > Cc: Yossi Leybovich; Gilad Shainer; Yevgeny Kliteynik; > > OPENIB; Michael S. Tsirkin; Hal Rosenstock > > Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: win related [was: Re: [PATCH 1/2] > > opensm: sigusr1: syslog() fixes]] > > > > On 20:31 Thu 08 Feb , Tzachi Dar wrote: > > > The windows open IB has decided on using a BSD only license. > > > The common implementation of pthreads as far as I know is > > LGPL, which > > > means that it can not be used in open IB. > > > > Why not? AFAIK it works perfectly (see (5,6 and Preamble)): > > http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html > > > > And of course there are tons of examples when BSD software > > links against LGPLed glibc. > > I can of course write you an answer that will be more than 5 pages long > of why *I* don't think that > Using GPL software is bad for everyone, but I guess that my opinion > doesn't really meter, so I > Won't do it. > The page that you have referenced is of the GNU org, and even there it > is hard to say that they > are trying to encourage you to use the LGPL license. In any case, the > main point is that > When open IB windows was formed there was a general decision that it > will use BSD license. If we > Start having components with the LGPL this will break that decision, and > therefore this requires > some voting of the open IB organization. I may be missing your point but is there something in the Windows OpenIB/OpenFabrics license that precludes using Windows OpenIB licensed code (e.g. BSD like license) in concert with non OpenIB code (like LGPL) ? Isn't that essentially what using the Windows pthreads DLL with OpenSM would be like ? As I understand it, I don't think this requires a license change or anything in the OpenIB Windows charter prevents this or needs changing. > > > The only two ways that I see around this are 1) Change the > > license of > > > open IB windows which might be a complicated thing. 2) Find an > > > implementation of pthreads that is BSD. > > > > BTW, just wondering... What is relation between windows open > > IB and OFA (and OFA's "dual-license rule")? > Well, the way I see it one can take code from the Linux part under the > BSD licance and use it in > The windows part. The otherway around seems fine to me but some say that > since the windows BSD liscance > Reqires that some text will always remain there, the other way around is > not possibale. As I'm not an > Expert in that erea I don't know who is right. I don't see how this affects what is being discussed about OpenSM. In all the cases I'm aware of, the portability is from Linux to Windows and not the other way around. -- Hal > > Sasha > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > Tzachi > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Sasha Khapyorsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 7:46 PM > > > > To: Tzachi Dar; Yossi Leybovich > > > > Cc: Yevgeny Kliteynik; OPENIB; Michael S. Tsirkin; Hal Rosenstock > > > > Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: win related [was: Re: [PATCH 1/2] > > > > opensm: sigusr1: syslog() fixes]] > > > > > > > > On 11:24 Sun 21 Jan , Yevgeny Kliteynik wrote: > > > > > Tzachi, Yossi, please join the thread. > > > > > What do you think about distributing a copy of the pthread DLL > > > > > with opensm? > > > > > > > > Any news here? Thanks. > > > > > > > > Sasha > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Yevgeny. > > > > > > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > > > > Subject: Re: win related [was: Re: [PATCH 1/2] opensm: sigusr1: > > > > > syslog() fixes] > > > > > Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 00:20:32 +0200 > > > > > From: Sasha Khapyorsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > To: Michael S. Tsirkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > CC: Yevgeny Kliteynik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > > > > OPENIB <openib-general@openib.org> > > > > > References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > > > On 23:50 Thu 18 Jan , Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > > > Quoting Sasha Khapyorsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > > Subject: Re: win related [was: Re: [PATCH 1/2] > > opensm: sigusr1: > > > > > > > syslog() fixes] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 07:00 Thu 18 Jan , Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > > > > > What about pure opensource - > > > > > > > > > http://sourceware.org/pthreads-win32/? It is licensed > > > > > > > > > under LGPL, I see on the net many positive reports about > > > > stability and usability. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I used it to do a windows port of linux complib at some > > > > > > > > point and opensm seemed to work fine with it. What it was > > > > lacking at > > > > > > > > that point was support for 64 bit applications, > > and for some > > > > > > > > reason (which is still unclear to me) there was a > > > > strong desire to run opensm in 64 bit mode. > > > > > > > > Seems to have been fixed now, BTW. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So this seems to be good option for OpenSM on > > Windows. Right? > > > > > > > > > > > > No idea. Distributing a copy of the pthread DLL with > > > > opensm does not > > > > > > look like a problem. But is it worth it? > > > > > > > > > > Sure, it makes windows porting much more transparent and > > > > let us to use > > > > > standard *nix stuff w/out #ifndef WIN32. Other > > (generic) benefit > > > > > is that posix is more standard and powerful than > > wrappers like complib. > > > > > > > > > > Sasha > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list openib-general@openib.org http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general _______________________________________________ ofw mailing list ofw@lists.openfabrics.org http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ofw _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list openib-general@openib.org http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general