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

Tue Feb 20 10:56:33 PST 2007

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: ofw-bounces at lists.openfabrics.org
[mailto:ofw-bounces at lists.openfabrics.org] On Behalf Of Hal Rosenstock
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 10:38 AM
To: ofw at 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 <halr at voltaire.com>
To: Tzachi Dar <tzachid at mellanox.co.il>
Cc: OPENIB <openib-general at openib.org>, Gilad Shainer
<Shainer at Mellanox.com>
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: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
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > 

_______________________________________________
openib-general mailing list
openib-general at openib.org
http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general

To unsubscribe, please visit
http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general

_______________________________________________
ofw mailing list
ofw at lists.openfabrics.org
http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ofw