Re: [boost] [simd] Hardware support

Subject: Re: [boost] [simd] Hardware support
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-04-08 21:57:35

On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 11:37 PM, Bryce Adelstein Lelbach via Boost
<boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Thijs (M.A.) van den Berg wrote:
>> I would be worried about you (in this hypothetical case) being able to
>> reject
>> improvements to the boost version. ... So suppose that someone want to
>> improve the boost versions, because it is all sort of slow bits, would you
>> accept those changes as a library maintainer? Or would you block them
>> because
>> it would ruin your commercial business  ?
>
> As Joel has stated later in this thread, it's not their intention to do so,
> and
> (IIUC) they already take patches to the OS version that adds support for
> things
> from the closed source version. He also mentioned that bSIMD licensing is
> not
> their only way of making money on their work.

I think there are two issues raised in the discussion:

1. Licensing and IP issues. While Joel's statements in this thread are
reassuring, I don't know his position in NumScale and whether he
represents the company's official position. I don't know what exact
steps need to be taken to resolve this matter, but probably there
needs to be an official (likely, off-list) exchange between NumScale
and Boost/SFF representatives. After that is done, this unpleasant
issue can be put to rest.

2. Whether Boost.SIMD will be properly maintained after acceptance
given the commercial version. Things are less optimistic on this front
- no concrete plans on supporting other architectures, but at least
Joel promises to give fair consideration to pull requests. Whether
that is acceptable or not the review will show.

#1 is critical. Without it being done there's nothing to review.

> Is the concern here that Joel/NumScale might not be able to stick to this
> policy
> in the future?

I don't want to put mistrust on Joel, but NumScale is a commercial
company, so we can't deny the possibility.

> Would people be less concerned if the library had other
> maintainers
> with no commercial interest in bSIMD?

I think that would be ideal.