It also seems to jibe with what I read out of the Windows license stuff for the Intel packages - namely, that you can't really release stuff compiled with the trial version (and there is no non-com version on Windows according to the Intel page, only commercial trial versions which expire).

So that's why I decided to only release Linux for now, since my use and distribution classifies as personal and non-commercial according to the license distributed by Intel (and my understanding of it).

Barring further developments (I already posted about the as yet unsent snail mail letter), that won't change quickly. I have access to a commercial license but it ain't mine, so that's not an option. Having to ask people to download code, compile it for me then send it back each time just doesn't work, not to mention them maybe having issues and/or getting flak for their kind help.

Regards,
Simon.

How much do all the relevant licenses cost?

---

Around 900 dollars AFAIK, but I haven't checked closely. Sadly, the licenses are time-limited, I believe that's for one year and includes ICC, IPP and MKL (the latter two being library packages).

Intel pricing page

Also don't forget both Linux and Windows (and maybe even OS X, for X86-based Macs) are required, so that doubles/triples normal license costs.

--edit
Intel Compiler for Linux - $399
Intel Compiler for Windows - $399
Intel Compiler for OS X - $399

IPP - $199
MKL - $399 (maybe not necessary, but probably faster than fftw).

From the pricing page, it seems that all supported OS flavours are included when you buy one license for the library packages. The compiler has to be licensed once per OS.

There's a promotional MacOS package available that includes Compiler, IPP and MKL and costs $549. Since the libraries seem to license cross-OS, that might be the cheapest path overall.

Regards,
Simon.

---

Donate to SETI@Home via PayPal!

Optimized SETI@Home apps + Information

Intel Compiler for Linux - $399
Intel Compiler for Windows - $399
Intel Compiler for OS X - $399
IPP - $199
MKL - $399 (maybe not necessary, but probably faster than fftw).

Yes, give me 2, please. :>

I've been buying intel chips since like 1989. Intel owes ME a lot, so I'll ask them to give me a license as a present. And then I'll give it to you.

I'll let you know how my petition goes. ;)

---

/Mav

We have lingered long enough on the shores of the cosmic ocean.
We are ready at last to set sail for the stars.
(Carl Sagan)

Around 900 dollars AFAIK, but I haven't checked closely. Sadly, the licenses are time-limited, I believe that's for one year and includes ICC, IPP and MKL (the latter two being library packages).

Simon.

Strange question.

Does all this legal rubish stop you from realeasing your 'un-compiled' work? before you've compiled it with the intel pakage its your intelectual property/ under gpl ect though obviously but they cant say you've broke the intel or any compilers license agreement can they?

What i mean is have the program you've made ready - compile it to test on your system - if it works then release the pre-compile source or tarball or what ever its called. Then we download it and compile it with the free :) intel (or whatever) compiler that anyone can download. :) With instructions would be helpfull :)

Sorry if i'm missing something obvious but i've only just started to try to learn to code myself and i wont even bother to try and understand the legal cr*p.

No, the source code is your's to do with as you see fit.

The license only applies once you run it through the compiler and wish to release for public use.

I guess that was the point Maverick was making earlier, he can still work on optimizing with the Intel products, but he can't release them anymore because his license expired.

Alinator

<edit> On second thought, there might be a problem with providing the exact config files for the compiler, but I would think there's nothing wrong with including a text "crib" sheet to help folks along.

No, the source code is your's to do with as you see fit.

The license only applies once you run it through the compiler and wish to release for public use.

I guess that was the point Maverick was making earlier, he can still work on optimizing with the Intel products, but he can't release them anymore because his license expired.

Alinator

So someone could release there optimized source material with some instructions on compiling and when to get the compilers(free?) and they wouldn't be breaking any rules. :)
Now just wish i know how to do all that. I doubt compileing is as easy as all that.

<edit> On second thought, there might be a problem with providing the exact config files for the compiler, but I would think there's nothing wrong with include a text "crib" sheet to help folks along.

Oh. darn it. Thanks for the info anyway.

So someone could release there optimized source material with some instructions on compiling and when to get the compilers(free?) and they wouldn't be breaking any rules. :)
Now just wish i know how to do all that. I doubt compileing is as easy as all that.

Note see edit above.

Yep, that much is certain, it's a lot harder than it sounds!

Alinator

Around $900 AFAIK, but I haven't checked closely. Sadly, the licenses are time-limited, I believe that's for one year and includes ICC, IPP and MKL (the latter two being library packages).

Intel pricing page

Also don't forget both Linux and Windows (and maybe even OS X, for X86-based Macs) are required, so that doubles/triples normal license costs.

--edit
Intel Compiler for Linux - $399
Intel Compiler for Windows - $399
Intel Compiler for OS X - $399

IPP - $199
MKL - $399 (maybe not necessary, but probably faster than fftw).

From the pricing page, it seems that all supported OS flavours are included when you buy one license for the library packages. The compiler has to be licensed once per OS.

There's a promotional MacOS package available that includes Compiler, IPP and MKL and costs $549. Since the libraries seem to license cross-OS, that might be the cheapest path overall.

Regards,
Simon.

I find it hard to believe that Crunch3r was paying $900 US every year just so he could make BOINC and s@h optimizations!

Something does not make sense here. How is Berkeley making WinXP SW using the Intel stuff? How is MIT (FFTW)?
There has to be some form of academic/non-commercial/non-profit site licensing scheme available; and most likely one that is not time-bombed.

There are far more WinXP hosts than Linux hosts running BOINC, so it seems fairly important that we find a way to make those hosts run a effeciently and effectively as possible.

---

EricVonDaniken,

to my knowledge he bought a license, and that's how :o)

Regards,
Simon.

A= can you verify that so we are sure of what thw truth is?

B= how much does a license cost?

A= if you search the forums, I think you'll find where he asked for donations.

B= I see someone has already given pricing.

---

Around $900 AFAIK, but I haven't checked closely. Sadly, the licenses are time-limited, I believe that's for one year and includes ICC, IPP and MKL (the latter two being library packages).

Intel pricing page

Also don't forget both Linux and Windows (and maybe even OS X, for X86-based Macs) are required, so that doubles/triples normal license costs.

--edit
Intel Compiler for Linux - $399
Intel Compiler for Windows - $399
Intel Compiler for OS X - $399

IPP - $199
MKL - $399 (maybe not necessary, but probably faster than fftw).

From the pricing page, it seems that all supported OS flavours are included when you buy one license for the library packages. The compiler has to be licensed once per OS.

There's a promotional MacOS package available that includes Compiler, IPP and MKL and costs $549. Since the libraries seem to license cross-OS, that might be the cheapest path overall.

Regards,
Simon.

I find it hard to believe that Crunch3r was paying $900 US every year just so he could make BOINC and s@h optimizations!

All of the licenses I saw are perpetual, the support contracts do run out.

Are the support contracts needed? Probably not.

Something does not make sense here. How is Berkeley making WinXP SW using the Intel stuff? How is MIT (FFTW)?

There are several other compilers that are free (GCC) or less expensive.

It is important to remember that Crunch3r's big claim to fame was that he was not using the same compiler as Berkeley, and he licensed some libraries that are not free (IPP), and then told the compiler to produce code tailored to specific processors.

I think TMR did the work to figure out ICC/IPP (someone please correct me if I'm wrong) and ICC may or may not be the best optimizing compier out there. Moving existing source from one compiler to another is work, and it's not the fun kind of work, it's just a slow grind to find all the differences between compilers.

There has to be some form of academic/non-commercial/non-profit site licensing scheme available; and most likely one that is not time-bombed.

There are far more WinXP hosts than Linux hosts running BOINC, so it seems fairly important that we find a way to make those hosts run a effeciently and effectively as possible.

One way to do this is to simply publish an "optimization cookbook" with links to available tools, installation instructions and etc.

Then anyone can download an eval. license for the compiler and libraries, and build their own. They just can't distribute the compiled code without violating the Intel license.

Another way is to find someone (surely out of the 460,000-odd users out there someone must have it) who already has a license and have them do the final compiles for us. There are ways to do that without violating the license, and without making the compiler owner do lots of work.

---

Craziness.

The best way to solve the problem is for Berekeley and/or BOINC to get the right licensing.

Frankly, I'd bet Berkeley does have a site Intel license for these tools and we just do not know it.

---

And I believe you'd be wrong Eric -

where do you see any inkling that Berkeley have even used any of the Intel packages themselves? The official client is compiled using GCC(Linux) and Microsoft Visual C++ (Windows) and NOT using Intel's package.

No, I do not believe that Berkeley or Seti@Home has a license for them.

And yes, it seems that Crunch3rs license was paid for using donations via paypal for at least a part of the cost. I haven't asked for anything similar because I don't think it's the right way.

TMR said his license ran out (he also found a sponsor) - so if only the support packages run out, he should actually still be able to release things with it. That also would alleviate some of the licensing cost (the recurring part), obviously.

I agree that there is only a problem releasing Apps on Windows right now BUT - that only goes for me. The project itself cannot use the personal free for non-commercial tools, namely because it's not a person as such.

So to use them, they would definitely need a License for Linux, too.

There are of course academic license programs available (just check their site), for which the project may qualify. In any case, that is something that I can neither influence nor do for them - all I can do, as promised, is write to Intel and see whether they would like to help us out.

Regards,
Simon.

---

Donate to SETI@Home via PayPal!

Optimized SETI@Home apps + Information

On 6/16/06, Charles Elliott wrote:

> Why don't you use the Intel compiler and libraries? You
> would not have to do much, if any, re-writing as it can
> produce runtime versions that pick and choose what instructions
> to use based on the capabilities of the CPU.

I don't think the compiler actually does what you are suggesting here.
(I'm prepared to be convinced otherwise, though). The last version I
tried didn't (a couple years ago).

> Moreover, in the studies I have read the Intel tools are the
> best in the industry and produce the fastest executables.

Most of the time we have to develop to the most common tools rather
than the fastest. The cost in my time required to switch compilers is
far larger than the cost of the compiler. GCC, OTOH, works everywhere
on every platform.

Eric

the above was copied from here ............


http://www.ssl.berkeley.edu/pipermail/boinc_opt/2006-June/000764.html

Thanks Byron,

I'm subscribed to that list already :o)

Actually, you can now do exactly what Eric Korpela said in that message you couldn't, which is have one executable that combines optimization for a couple of platforms (didn't use to be possible but now works).

The relevant compiler switches on Windows are /QaX and /QxX where X is either K, W, N or B (K-> P3/SSE, W ->Generic SSE2, N -> P4 SSE2, B -> P4 SSE3). So you can also combine more than one to make it look like /QaKWNB, which would make a monolithic executable that's optimized from P3 upwards and executes everywhere.

It'll be larger than the original, of course, and it has about a 3% performance penalty vs. a "pure" optimized binary. Compared to the default, though, that's still massively quicker.

A point to remember, to be sure.

Regards,
Simon.

---

Donate to SETI@Home via PayPal!

Optimized SETI@Home apps + Information

The official client is compiled using GCC(Linux) and Microsoft Visual C++ (Windows) and NOT using Intel's package.
...
Simon.

Eric Korpela switched to DevC++/MinGW for the Windows builds in Beta starting with the 5.10 version, and has used that combination for all Windows releases here. He also keeps the VC++ project files updated, of course.

                                                    Joe

...where do you see any inkling that Berkeley have even used any of the Intel packages themselves? The official client is compiled using GCC(Linux) and Microsoft Visual C++ (Windows) and NOT using Intel's package.
I'm not just talking about s@h or even BOINC here.

I'm talking about Berkeley and possibly even the U of C as whole.

There's a =ton= of academic research programming going on there, and most of it is on Wintel or Lintel boxes. It seems inconceivable that Berkeley as a whole, or possible even U of C, doesn't have some sort of "sweetheart deal" with Intel in regards to Intel's x86 libraries and build tools.

The "parallel path" is that if Intel's stuff really is making code that is 2-3x faster for SWAR than g++/gcc, that's a Problem the FSF compiler folks should care a great deal about.

However we do it, ~500-750K hosts burning 2-3x as much electricity, time, etc per result than they should be is Something That Needs to be Fixed.

...especially since this problem is going to get worse as more modern CPU's are introduced. The trend is towards specialized HW and instruction sets for things like FP and embarassingly parallel code.
The diffrence in performance of "ordinary" FP and SSE4 optimized FP on Core2 CPUs is something like between 1:4 to 1:8

---

Well,

be that as it may - the Seti@Home project is a separate entity and I don't think its entitled to use Berkeley's licenses. They may of course have a deal with Intel in place, but that's really neither here nor there. Your friend may be married to a Supermodel, but does that mean she's going to sleep in your bed? :o) (no answers please :P)

I do agree that this problem is only going to worsen (like you said, optimized SSE code vs. traditional FPU code performance and similar things), and that the most favourable solution would be to offer a client that's as efficient as possible to EVERYONE.

Retaining users and making the most efficient use of the donated CPU time should also be on top of our list of things to do, so I'm with you there.

I'll repeat what I said before - as I have zero experience dealing with the "parallel path" (the FSF?), so feel free to jump in - I'm sure you can explain as coherently to them as to us what this is all about.

For my part, I'm about to finish a draft of my letter, which I'll be sending to Eric Korpela asking whether it's objectionable to the project in that form or not. I don't want to barge ahead without him/the project staff at least knowing what's happening.

I'll also post it (or a link to a copy of it) here.

Regards,
Simon.

---

Donate to SETI@Home via PayPal!

Optimized SETI@Home apps + Information

As to Windows binaries,

I just checked the license for Intel's evaluation versions, and it has this to say:

EVALUATION LICENSE: If you are using the Materials under the control of an Evaluation license, you as an individual may use the Materials only for internal evaluation purposes and only for the term of the evaluation time period, which is controlled by the license key code for the Materials. NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY ELSEWHERE IN THIS AGREEMENT, YOU MAY NOT DISTRIBUTE ANY PORTION OF THE MATERIALS, AND THE APPLICATION AND/OR PRODUCT DEVELOPED BY YOU MAY ONLY BE USED FOR EVALUATION PURPOSES AND ONLY FOR THE TERM OF THE EVALUATION PERIOD. You may install copies of the Materials on an unlimited number of computers provided that you are the only individual using the Materials and only one copy of the Materials is in use at any one time. A separate license is required for each additional use and/or individual user in all other cases. Intel will provide you with a license code key that enables the Materials for an Evaluation license. If you are an entity, Intel grants you the right to designate one individual within your organization to have the sole right to use the Materials in the manner provided above.

So yes, I could indeed use them to compile a client, which I could even distribute for TESTING PURPOSES ONLY and which could not legally be used after those 30 days (or distributed!).

I couldn't stop people "testing" it on BOINC for credits if I did that, either.

That's a no-go for me. I will not release stuff that I know to be taking advantage of a legal technicality (requiring people to confirm an EULA that makes them promise to use it only until trial expiration and then delete would put me in the clear, legally...but not ethically).

So unless a dark horse suddenly appears, no go on the Windows client from me for now.

Regards,
Simon.

---

Donate to SETI@Home via PayPal!

Optimized SETI@Home apps + Information

Er,

I'll be the first to point out I might be wrong about the non-com versions for Windows.

The same license states, a paragraph before (I should have looked and recognized this earlier):

NONCOMMERCIAL-USE LICENSE: If you are using the Materials under the control of a Noncommercial-Use license, you as an individual may use the Materials only for non-business use where you receive no fee, salary or any other forms of compensation. The Materials may not be used for any other purpose, whether "for profit" or "not for profit." Any work performed or produced as a result of use of the Materials cannot be performed or produced for the benefit of other parties for a fee, compensation or any other reimbursement or remuneration. You may install copies of the Materials on an unlimited number of computers provided that you are the only individual using the Materials and only one copy of the Materials is in use at any one time. A separate license is required for each additional use and/or individual user in all other cases. Intel will provide you with a license code key that enables the Materials for a Noncommercial-Use license. If you obtained a time-limited Noncommercial-Use license, the duration (time period) of your license and your ability to use the Materials is limited to the time period of the obtained license, which is controlled by the license key code for the Materials. If you are an entity, Intel grants you the right to designate one individual within your organization to have the sole right to use the Materials in the manner provided above.

Now that is on a page that SPECIFICALLY states this is a Windows version! However, there are only Linux non-com downloads available (linked on the Intel site).
When you receive an email from them with your Linux non-com license, the link points at ftp://download.intel.com, which is an anonymous FTP. Installers and packages for all their products and all operating systems are available there.

Also, like noted before, the library package licenses are for all supported operating systems, so Linux licenses will work on Windows, too. The Linux non-com ICC license also seemed to work fine...

Now, this dilemma is something that's worthy of putting to the FSF, to me. Had they not specifically included the non-commercial version paragraph into the license for the WINDOWS version, I would not have thought so.

Whatcha think?

Regards,
Simon.

---

Donate to SETI@Home via PayPal!

Optimized SETI@Home apps + Information

I will not release stuff that I know to be taking advantage of a legal technicality (requiring people to confirm an EULA that makes them promise to use it only until trial expiration and then delete would put me in the clear, legally...but not ethically).

Sounds like that might also conflict with the GPL for the original sources, which forbids the imposition of further conditions on licensees.

<edit>Let me add that although I’m a Mac-oriented person and therefore not particularly interested in Windows or Linux optimizations, I congratulate you on the circumspect and methodical manner in which you’ve been proceeding (according to what I’ve seen ‘from the sidelines’) with respect to both testing for validity (protecting the potential scientific results) and investigating legal issues (protecting the project & its volunteers).</edit>

---