multi thread in PhAB

QNX Newsgroups (Archives) qnx.gui
21

hi, JohnMcClurkin . now I cann’t open ftp://lsr-ftp.nei.nih.gov/lsr
with anonymous. please check it for me. Thanks

22

dxwang wrote:

hi, JohnMcClurkin . now I cann’t open > ftp://lsr-ftp.nei.nih.gov/lsr
with anonymous. please check it for me. Thanks

Works for me. What exactly are you trying to do?

23

Ok, open it now !

24

(from libgcc2.h)

/* As a special exception, if you link this library with other files,
some of which are compiled with GCC, to produce an executable,
this library does not by itself cause the resulting executable
to be covered by the GNU General Public License.
This exception does not however invalidate any other reasons why
the executable file might be covered by the GNU General Public License. */


John Nagle wrote:

Robert Rutherford wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 20:48:27 -0700, John Nagle wrote:

You might find our “mutexlock.h” from this page useful.

http://www.overbot.com/public/qnx



John - I quite like your approach there but we can’t use it as it is LGPL
and we are a closed source shop. Are you prepared to consider a different
license?

No, that would be inappropriate.

Realize that most of the libraries used with GCC are licensed under
the LGPL,
so most QNX applications already contain LGPL code. This is not usually a
problem unless you modify the library.

John Nagle

25

On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 22:16:27 -0700, John Nagle wrote:


On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 20:48:27 -0700, John Nagle wrote:
Realize that most of the libraries used with GCC are licensed under the LGPL,
so most QNX applications already contain LGPL code. This is not usually a
problem unless you modify the library

I don’t believe that is true (provided you use the Dinkum libs).

My understanding of the situation is:

  • The Dinkum libs and any QNX-authored or QNX-officially-supplied libs are
    not GPL or LGPL
  • If you link dynamically with a LGPL lib you are probably OK (based on the
    “spirit” of the LGPL but there are those that dispute this and you are
    risking muddy waters)
  • If you link statically with a LGPL lib you are running a higher risk of
    not being OK

Based on this we have a policy of not using any LGPL libs in our product.
It is not worth the risk.

Of course there are plenty of other “open source” licenses out there that
are perfectly safe provided you comply with the other license requirements
(such as BSD License, MIT License, Apache License, etc).

Of course it all changes with GPL3.

Of course if this is not correct then I am willing to stand corrected.

Rob Rutherford