While sharing a "Who uses the soon-to-be-deprecated C++ MPI bindings?"
laugh with a coworker this morning, it came to my attention that some
people (even very boost-friendly people like him) avoid the boost::MPI
API as well, if only because of the hassle of adding dependencies (or
playing with bja
On 4/11/12 3:05 PM, "Roy Stogner" wrote:
> Ben, would you be averse to relicensing parallel.h (and *only*
> parallel.h, of course) as something like BSD, to widen the potential
> userbase a little further still? Seems like the authorship on it was
> about 2000 lines from me, 1000 from you. (alt
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012, Kirk, Benjamin (JSC-EG311) wrote:
> No major objections, but what additional flexibility would that provide? No
> need to provide source for modifications?
BSD would mean "no need to provide source for modifications".
LGPL in the context of templates seems to mean "maybe y
