Re: [boost] [simd] Hardware support

Subject: Re: [boost] [simd] Hardware support
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-04-08 13:54:08

On 04/08/17 16:21, Mathias Gaunard via Boost wrote:
> On 8 April 2017 at 13:21, Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> On 04/08/17 14:06, Mathias Gaunard via Boost wrote:
>>
>>> On 8 April 2017 at 11:14, Bjorn Reese via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Boost.SIMD only supports x86.
>>>>
>>>> Are there plans for ARM NEON and/or MIPS SIMD?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Other platforms are supported in the proprietary version of the library.
>>> https://developer.numscale.com/bsimd/documentation/v1.17.3.0/
>>>
>>
>> Will those be eventually included in Boost.SIMD, if it's accepted into
>> Boost?
>>
>
> Being no longer affiliated with NumScale, the company behind this library,
> I cannot say.
> The original plan was to keep support for unusual and/or recent
> architectures proprietary, while the open-source version would get backends
> once the underlying technology becomes mainstream enough.
>
> In practice I would not expect much; Boost.SIMD was initially developed by
> a French university but is now handled by a company whose leanings towards
> open-source might be less open.

That is sad to hear.

In the case that the code is not released, are you or other authors 
allowed (legally), able and willing to implement those backends in the 
opensource Boost.SIMD? By "implement" I don't mean reproducing the 
closed-source code but implementing the backends as your library design 
requires. If not you yourself, would you be willing and able to accept 
patches that implement that functionality, if someone else takes on the 
task?

> This is an important point, IMO, and it should be clarified before review.
>> If there are no plans to improve Boost.SIMD in order not to harm the
>> commercial version then that makes Boost.SIMD significantly less
>> attractive. Personally, I would vote for rejection in this case.
>>
>
> I personally have severe concerns about all aspects of intellectual
> property surrounding that library and the people behind it.
> For example, when I did a talk about Boost.SIMD at a conference using
> nothing but open-source material, my employer received a cease-and-desist
> letter and was asked to destroy all material related to Boost.SIMD as
> NumScale claimed it was their property. My employer complied to be on the
> safe side.
>
> I believe that during the review we should definitely take into account how
> the existence of the two versions of the software can be harmful to users.

If the licensing situation is indeed unclear, it probably makes sense to 
put the review on hold and clarify this matter with NumScale (or whoever 
claims rights on the library). I think the last thing anyone needs is 
being pulled into court.

Until the licensing issue is clear, I don't think the review, let alone 
acceptance, should happen. (Sorry, if that sounds disappointing or 
harsh, but I think that is ultimately for the better for you, Boost and 
Boost users.)