Y'all are a bunch of wankers!

Threading Building Blocks


Anybody used this before?  It caught my interest because a) it's free and b) it's gonna be difficult for anybody to put out a more efficient threading library than the company that built the processor.
Permalink Send private email Clay Dowling 
July 26th, 2007 9:41am
Interesting. I'd seen that, but discounted it (for commercial purposes) when I saw that it was licensed under the GPL...but now I see that it has a massive runtime exception (doesn't that basically make it LGPL licensed?)

Very intriguing.

Do you use the Boost libraries already?
Permalink DF 
July 26th, 2007 9:55am
Ah, I see they linked to an answer to the LGPL question-

"A: The LGPL requires that users be able to replace the LGPL code with a modified version; this is trivial if the library in question is a C shared library. But there's no way to make that work with C++, where much of the library consists of inline functions and templates, which are expanded inside the code that uses the library. So to allow people to replace the library code, someone using the library would have to distribute their own source, rendering the LGPL equivalent to the GPL. "
Permalink DF 
July 26th, 2007 9:58am
I do use boost, although I don't think I have any boost code in the project that I'm considering this for.  That's a wxWidgets project and if there's any boost code I'll be surprised.  In general though I'm a huge boost fan.  It saves me a lot of work.
Permalink Send private email Clay Dowling 
July 26th, 2007 10:06am
Okay, I just looked into the project and it does use Boost.
Permalink Send private email Clay Dowling 
July 26th, 2007 10:24am
The problem is they view tasks as a computation, a calculation when when applications are often CSMs, which require a different model than just parceling out function invocations. I like that it knows how to look at the whole CPU complement, but we are still very low level here.
Permalink son of parnas 
July 26th, 2007 11:01am
Why on earth would Intel release code under the GPL? I thought they released those sorts of libraries to encourage people to use features on their chips or whatnot. With GPL, the library can not be used in most commercial projects, which covers a whole lot of intel paying customers.

As far as the 'runtime exception' thing goes, it says that it applies to "you may use this file as part of a free software library without restriction". Does that mean that IT is a free software library, or that your project has to be a free software library to be used without restriction? It's ambiguous. And then it says "This exception does not however invalidate any other reasons why the executable file might be covered by the GNU General Public License" which means 'danger will robinson danger'.

I don't know that that clarification page is a legally binding part of the license contract, probably it is not and in court only the text of the license would matter and not their explanation that "It's GPL, but it's not really, see?" which is useless as an explanation.
Permalink Practical Economist 
July 26th, 2007 6:20pm
Also, they are assholes about it with "Hopefully that text is self-explanatory. If it isn't, you need to speak to your lawyer, or the Free Software Foundation."

Fuck that man. Any license that is so fucking complicated I need to talk to lawyers, fuck it.
Permalink Practical Economist 
July 26th, 2007 6:21pm

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other topics: July, 2007 Other topics: July, 2007 Recent topics Recent topics