Working with Macs is not without it's challenges. I now have my
workstation and laptop (both ML) both working with full stacks built
against GCC and Clang without any special compiler options or other libMesh
flag hacks ;) However, Apple, not wanting us to get bored has created
another minor hurd
Alright, My fparser patch is now in HEAD.
--with-fparser=release (default)
--with-fparser=devel
--with-fparser=none
Hopefully this will satisfy all :)
Cody
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Roy Stogner wrote:
>
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012, Derek Gaston wrote:
>
> > Between license incompatibility an
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012, Derek Gaston wrote:
> Between license incompatibility and patent issues it's just a damn
> mess!
Yeah; people try to slap licenses or license combinations on their
code without really understanding the implications.
(Note that I'm not counting libHilbert here: releasing a l
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 6:38 AM, Roy Stogner wrote:
> I don't share Derek's newfound anger at the GPL.
>
It's not newfound! We've been going through the bureaucracy here to try to
open source MOOSE and a big part of that has been to try to understand all
of our open-source licensing options and
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012, Paul T. Bauman wrote:
> (If everyone is done playing out their lawyer fantasy...)
Lawyers have to deal with around 20 million lines of poorly-written
"library code" in US laws, plus all the accreted case law interpreting
the most ambiguous parts, plus whatever contract terms
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Cody Permann wrote:
> Looks good - please commit
r6197. Thanks. FYI - Sourceforge still seems to be on the fritz. Was
getting SSL handshake failures for awhile... YMMV.
--
Everyone hates
Looks good - please commit
Cody
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 8:10 AM, Cody Permann wrote:
> I'll check it out and let you know.
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 7:37 AM, Paul T. Bauman wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Paul T. Bauman wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, check that. That patch was not th
I'll check it out and let you know.
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 7:37 AM, Paul T. Bauman wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Paul T. Bauman wrote:
>
>> Actually, check that. That patch was not the right way to do this. Will
>> post an updated version soon. Instead of just checking if we're on
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Paul T. Bauman wrote:
> Actually, check that. That patch was not the right way to do this. Will
> post an updated version soon. Instead of just checking if we're on Darwin,
> we still need to distinguish between Apple compilers and non Apple
> compilers on Darwin
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012, Kirk, Benjamin (JSC-EG311) wrote:
>> If we were going to be
>> that purist we might as well switch from the LGPL to the GPL
>> ourselves.
>
> To be clear, I have never wanted to do that, and I don't think it is
> the right path - I hope R. Stogner, Esquire is simply offerin
> If we were going to be
> that purist we might as well switch from the LGPL to the GPL
> ourselves.
To be clear, I have never wanted to do that, and I don't think it is the right
path - I hope R. Stogner, Esquire is simply offering that as what strict
compliance would mean for us.
I certai
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012, Derek Gaston wrote:
> That brings me to another topic... we have other binary blobs in
> libMesh... like tecio.a...
We've got like a hundred different tecio.a versions in there, but I
thought that was the only blob.
> Don't we have the same problems there?
Yeah, we do. te
On Oct 23, 2012, at 7:57 PM, Derek Gaston wrote:
> What a mess.
>
> That brings me to another topic... we have other binary blobs in
> libMesh... like tecio.a... Don't we have the same problems there?
>
> At any rate the GPL is madness. This kind of crap really turns me off
> of the whole "fre
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 5:08 PM, Paul T. Bauman wrote:
> Attached patch work for you guys? Haven't been able to fully test - seems
> latest XCode update broke something and I'm having to rebuild one of the
> libraries. configure seems to work correctly for me in dbg mode.
>
Actually, check that.
H... Yes. You are right. Too many damned situations to keep
track of. GPL applications can link to non-free libraries... BUT only
in the case of "system" libraries.
So... if fparser were distributed with operating systems as a binary
blob then a GPL application can use it. However, a binar
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012, Cody Permann wrote:
> I vote that we stop the license war.
Okay; this will be my last post. It's hardly a "war", but there's
nothing else I was going to say that isn't covered by that FAQ; anyone
confused can just go read the whole thing.
I thought that last entry was pret
I vote that we stop the license war. I plan to satisfy all requirements
with my fparser patch tomorrow. :-) cheers
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 23, 2012, at 5:43 PM, Derek Gaston wrote:
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Roy Stogner wrote:
>
> The whole reason the GPL was created was to protect p
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Roy Stogner wrote:
>
> The whole reason the GPL was created was to protect people's source
> code from being redistributed in derived works linked with binary
> blobs, regardless of the binary's license. That's basically the whole
> difference between GPL and LGPL
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012, Derek Gaston wrote:
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Roy Stogner wrote:
There is absolutely nothing wrong with distributing binary versions
of GPL/LGPL software as long as the source is available _somewhere_.
This is a popular enough misconception
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Roy Stogner wrote:
> There is absolutely nothing wrong with distributing binary versions
>> of GPL/LGPL software as long as the source is available _somewhere_.
>>
>
> This is a popular enough misconception to have made the FAQ.
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/**gpl-
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Cody Permann wrote:
> Alright, Paul's suggestion was indeed spot on. DGLIBCXX_DEBUG was indeed
> causing my issues and appears to have been causing at least some of my
> issues with the developer version of fparser as well. I've known for a
> very long time that
-- Forwarded message --
From: Roy Stogner
Date: Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 1:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Libmesh-devel] Compiler Fiasco Upate
To: Derek Gaston
Cc: Cody Permann ,
libmesh-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012, Derek Gaston wrote:
_We_ don't have to distribute
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012, Derek Gaston wrote:
_We_ don't have to distribute "the preferred form" if we don't make
modifications to it (which we're not). It's enough just to say that
we're using fparser and that the source is available... which it is:
from Sourceforge.
Correct, and you emphasized
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Roy Stogner wrote:
> We can release libmesh.so without any source code under the most
> permissive license imaginable, but the license choice wouldn't make it
> GPL compatible.
>
> Similarly, tens of thousands of lines like
>
> "#define gX2 +mflit1_1*"
>
> does no
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012, Kirk, Benjamin (JSC-EG311) wrote:
Given the work that's gone into packaging the development version,
I'm all for leaving it in there but not building it unless
explicitly asked… I like the idea of distributing both but by
default building the "released" version…
Cody, it
>> Ummm - the license in the released version is the BSD3-Clause
>> license. It is an open source license (in fact it's one of the most
>> permissive licenses) and it is both GPL and LGPL compatible. I
>> don't think there is a problem with using that code...
>
> We can release libmesh.so witho
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012, Derek Gaston wrote:
Ummm - the license in the released version is the BSD3-Clause
license. It is an open source license (in fact it's one of the most
permissive licenses) and it is both GPL and LGPL compatible. I
don't think there is a problem with using that code...
We
Ummm - the license in the released version is the BSD3-Clause license. It
is an open source license (in fact it's one of the most permissive
licenses) and it is both GPL and LGPL compatible. I don't think there is a
problem with using that code...
Derek
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Cody Pe
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Roy Stogner wrote:
>
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2012, Cody Permann wrote:
>
> So I just sent the patch to John and he wasn't very crazy about the
>> whole direction as he reviewed my patch. I made the arbitrary
>> decision to turn off the optimizer for the release version
Alright, Paul's suggestion was indeed spot on. DGLIBCXX_DEBUG was indeed
causing my issues and appears to have been causing at least some of my
issues with the developer version of fparser as well. I've known for a
very long time that those flags simply didn't work with the Apple
compilers, but I
That error is eerily familiar to what I get on OSX when I use boost.unit in my
app code. No resolution yet, but definitely let me know if you figure it out!
On Oct 22, 2012, at 4:00 PM, "Cody Permann"
mailto:codyperm...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Paul T. Bauman
mai
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Paul T. Bauman wrote:
> Sorry I haven't been able to be more helpful in reproducing the errors. Is
> the pretty much settled at this point (i.e. ditching the non-release
> version of fparser) or is there still some more stuff y'all would like me
> to try?
Don't
32 matches
Mail list logo
