commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Luc Maisonobe <Luc.Maison...@free.fr>
Subject Re: [math] Questions about the linear package
Date Thu, 15 Oct 2009 19:21:23 GMT
Jake Mannix a écrit :
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Luc Maisonobe <Luc.Maisonobe@free.fr>wrote:
> 
>> When this topic was discussed previously, Sam asked to someone called
>> Bjorn-Ove and the reply was positive, see
>> <http://markmail.org/message/gmapelqh3u5gquzr>.
>>
>>
> Ok, so reading this thread left it at the following:
> 
>   1) the maintainers of MTJ were all willing to relicense it as Apache, that
> which
> wasn't already BSD licensed.  So licenses are workable.
> 
>   2) there was discussion about what level of native code / generated code
> would
> be acceptable in [math], which the consensus was that java source code was
> required,
> but f2j had some weird post-processing on .class files necessary, meaning
> that to
> include mtj, [math] would need to depend on:
> 
>     a) Fortran source code files which could be included, or
>     b) compiled java jars which have the translated BLAS/LAPACK code
> 
> Does 2) hinder the acceptability of MTJ in [math] ?  JIRA tickets MATH-269,
> MATH-270,
> and MATH-271 haven't been commented on since they were created back in
> May...

I think 2) is a real problem.

Choice 2a) opens a can of worms with native compilation of a library
with just the right set of compiler/linker options to allow it to be
opened by Runtime.getRuntime().loadLibrary(name). I've done it several
times on Unix and Linux systems with autoconf/automake/libtool but this
is really a pain. I also don't know how to do that on Windows or other
systems.

Choice 2b) raises different issues: f2j is distributed under a modified
GPL license (i.e. GPL with the addition of the BSD advertising clause,
something I have never seen before). It is announced in sourceforge as
being published under a BSD license, but the LICENSE file in both f2j
08. and f2j 0.8.1 are GPL with BSD clause ... The underlying javab tool
is also freely available only for education, research and non-profit
purposes. We clearly can redistribute neither f2j itself nor javaB due
to these licensex and so would have to distribute only the already
compiled jar files. I'm reluctant to distribute binary only blobs in our
distribution (and if I remember correctly, Phil also didn't like this idea).

I don't know of any other fortran to java conversion tools.

Luc

> 
>   -jake
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


Mime
View raw message