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: > > http://www.open-mpi.org/community/contribute/ > > 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 Takustr. 7 14195 Berlin Tel: +49-30-84185-270 Fax: +49-30-84185-311 e-mail: kall...@zib.de
