On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 14:45 -0500, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> On Dec 2, 2010, at 4:25 AM, Bernd Kallies wrote:
> > I'm thinking about either submitting this to CPAN or to the hwloc dev
> > team. However, I first wanted to wait how things with hwloc 1.1 will
> > look, when the dust has settled somehow.
> > Any hints or ideas?
> I forgot to address this.
> 1.1 is pretty close to done. If you wanted to shift your work to be based on 1.1, I think you'd be pretty safe.
I'll try. Currently my wrapper implements only basic things, so there
should be no problem (because it is a wrapper, only). Problems would
arise when one wants to extend the number of implemented methods. To be
honest, I expected some remarks about the completeness of the wrapper.
> As for CPAN vs. upstream to us, I don't have a good feel for what would be the right answer there. There certainly is value in both directions (keeping it separate from upstream and from including it upstream).
> Let me just ask one logistical question that may help guide down the right road: in order to keep all the IP clean in the code base, we require anyone who submits more-than-trivial patches to sign an Open MPI 3rd party contribution agreement:
> IANAL and this is not legal advice, but my understanding is that this is the Apache contribution agreement essentially with s/Apache/Open MPI/g. It allows us to distribute any code you contribute under the BSD license.
> Would you -- or your employer, if they own the code that you generate -- be able to sign this document?
The answer is yes.
Dr. Bernd Kallies
Konrad-Zuse-Zentrum für Informationstechnik Berlin