[PETSC #18705] PETSc and Cygwin License (POSIX layer)

[Matthew Knepley]

On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:42 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

>
>  Make is NOT the problem! (It is just one of several)
>
>  Config/configure.py uses the SHELL constantly for basically everything.
> Try running config/configure.py
> under Windows without using cygwin.


I disagree with this characterization. The lowest level definitely spawns
shell jobs, however at the configure
level, they are a small set of specific tasks, and it would not be hard to
retarget them to a different architecture.
For instance, almost everything comes down to a compile, link, or execution.
I will now say "toolbox", or maybe
"toolbag" (buildstuff?).

  Matt


>
>  I hate the term "toolchain"
>
>
>   Barry
>
> On Dec 4, 2008, at 12:04 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote:
>
>  I for one think it should be possible to remove 'make' from the
>> toolchain, leaving us with only win32fe, which we distribute. Thus
>> I think we could abandon cygwin once and for all. I would even be
>> willing to write a \emph{make clone} to accomplish this, even though
>> I am a committed enemy of make (which once TP'ed my house).
>>
>>   Matt
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov>
>> Date: Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:00 PM
>> Subject: Re: [PETSC #18705] PETSc and Cygwin License (POSIX layer)
>> To: Stefan Benkler <benkler at itis.ethz.ch>
>> Cc: petsc-maint at mcs.anl.gov
>>
>>
>>  Stefan,
>>
>>   Here is my understanding of the situation.
>>
>>   Conjecture: You CAN use an open source compiler (GNU)  to compile
>> proprietary code and then sell
>> the binaries without making the proprietary code GNU licensed so long as
>> you just use the
>> GNU compilers out of the box and don't change their source code and don't
>> include the compliers
>> libraries in your binaries.
>>
>>  IF this is true then you are safe, the Cygwin environment is only used by
>> PETSc to have
>> a system to compile PETSc. None of it is included in the binaries
>> generated.
>>
>>  On the other hand, if my initial conjecture is wrong, then there could be
>> a problem.
>>
>>  Barry
>>
>> We've tried over the years to use Windows "posix" environments to develop
>> a build system
>> for PETSc so we don't need cygwin to build PETSc. Unfortunately their
>> stuff is so "un-unix"
>> like that it just wasn't practical and using developers studio to build
>> PETSc directly is
>> possible but requires some how getting all the PETSc source properly into
>> developers studio
>> and as far as I know the only way to do this is manually through the gui
>> which is very painful;
>> plus if we change something in the Unix build side later we'd need to
>> change it manually
>> on the developers studio side.
>>
>> If the situation has changed and Windows does provide a reasonable way to
>> build large
>> unix codes I'd love to hear about it and use it. We hate cygwin but feel
>> with have no other
>> reasonable option.
>>
>> On Dec 4, 2008, at 3:33 AM, Stefan Benkler wrote:
>>
>> Dear PETSc developers
>>
>> Since a while, I successfully use your fantastic library on Windows. Thank
>> you very much!
>>
>> Lately, I had a discussion about the involved copyrights/licenses with a
>> colleague. The main point was if PETSc requires the POSIX layer of cygwin on
>> Windows (and therefore would need to fulfill cygwin's GPL license).
>>
>> My standpoint was that cygwin is just used to configure and build the
>> library, but only native Windows libraries (using MS or Intel's Windows
>> compiler, MKL) are finally linked to the PETSc libs. However, I have
>> difficulties to proof this claim, which is the reason for this email.
>>
>> Please comment/clarify the licensing on a Windows system.
>>
>> Thanks a lot for your informations.
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>>  Stefan Benkler
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their
>> experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their
>> experiments lead.
>> -- Norbert Wiener
>>
>
>


-- 
What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments
is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments
lead.
-- Norbert Wiener
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20081204/2f6defad/attachment.html>