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

[Gilad Shainer]

Windows Open IB is part of OpenFabrics. OpenFabrics includes Linux and
Windows communities. The Linux code is dual license while the Windows
code is BSD only.

Gilad.

  

-----Original Message-----
From: Tzachi Dar 
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 1:24 PM
To: Sasha Khapyorsky
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]]

See bellow.

Thanks
Tzachi 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sasha Khapyorsky [mailto:sashak at voltaire.com]
> 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.


> > 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.


> 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
> > > > 
> > > 
>