Open MPI logo

Open MPI Development Mailing List Archives

  |   Home   |   Support   |   FAQ   |   all Development mailing list

Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] Fwd: RFC: proposed GPLv3 license exception draft
From: Ralph Castain (rhc_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-04-25 11:09:01

Just to be clear, Ralf - I'm not advocating that we change build
systems. I agree it has been a good relationship, and your
participation has been welcome and extremely helpful.

My point was only that the GPL continues to evolve and seems to be
growing more aggressive in its "viral" clauses, which makes it harder
to work with those packages without getting "assimilated", as the Borg
would say.

Thus, it may at some point become necessary to change, even though
nobody really wants to suffer the pain of doing so. I'm not sure if
these new changes represent that point or not - but it is something we
may need to consider, especially if the GPL continues to grow more
viral in the future.


On Apr 25, 2009, at 12:46 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:

>> Ralph Castain wrote:
>>> Frankly, this all seems absurd to me. The GPL continues to grow in
>>> its
>>> unfriendliness. Perhaps it is time we reconsider our use of these
>>> tools - we had given some consideration in the past to moving, and
>>> maybe we need to do so again.
> Of course I am not in a position to tell you what build system to use,
> but in my view, both autotools and Open MPI have profited quite a bit
> from each other (I hope!), in that the former has gained support for
> several new systems since, squashed lots of bugs, and the latter has
> been a very good stress test example, and as a result, the former now
> has several improvements for large packages (faster config.status,
> less bloat in files, threaded automake execution) from
> which
> the latter may profit.
> Cheers,
> Ralf
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel_at_[hidden]