[openib-general] [Fwd: Re: win related [was: Re: [PATCH 1/2] opensm: sigusr1: syslog() fixes]]

[Sasha Khapyorsky]

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.

> 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")?

Sasha

> 
> Thanks
> Tzachi
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sasha Khapyorsky [mailto:sashak at voltaire.com] 
> > 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 <sashak at voltaire.com>
> > > To: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at mellanox.co.il>
> > > CC: Yevgeny Kliteynik <kliteyn at dev.mellanox.co.il>,        
> > OPENIB <openib-general at openib.org>
> > > References: <20070118194403.GA23783 at sashak.voltaire.com> 
> > > <20070118215023.GP9890 at mellanox.co.il>
> > > 
> > > On 23:50 Thu 18 Jan     , Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > Quoting Sasha Khapyorsky <sashak at voltaire.com>:
> > > > > 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
> > > 
> >