> From: Roland Dreier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 10:08 AM > > Sean> My understanding is that the labs, who control the OpenIB > Sean> servers, refused to host any Windows related code, forcing > Sean> it to have a separate repository. > > Christoph> It shouldn't be difficult to find someone to host it. > Christoph> I could maybe ask if such a repo could be put at the > Christoph> lst.de servers. > > Actually I think the issue was somewhat different. Microsoft is so > allergic to the GPL that they asked for the code to be in a physically > separate repository.
Microsoft requested a separate repository, not separate servers. Sandia currently hosts the OpenIB SVN repository for Linux and did not want to host the Windows code since they have no interest in it. Yes, this makes things a bit more cumbersome, but such is life. The DDK license supposedly has limitations that make it incompatible with the GPL license - building GPL code with the DDK would be a violation of the DDK license somehow. I have no interest in revisiting this topic - it is what it is, we've argued endlessly about it already, so let's just move on. That said, I personally don't see any issue with user-mode tools being dual-license - it's the core bits that can't be. As far as I'm concerned, having OpenSM maintained in the Linux SVN repository is fine. It would be handy to have a shadow in the Windows repository so that it's easy to get and build, and that's what I think the plan is. As a note, the uDAPL code in the Windows SVN has the uDAPL triple license. - Fab _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
