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

[Hal Rosenstock]

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: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.

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: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
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> >