libiomp5mt.lib has been removed !

libiomp5mt.lib has been removed !

I know the reason why libiomp5mt.lib is removed.

But this forces the third party library providers who have  MKL license to distribute libiomp5md.dll with their libraries(any other can be statically linked).

Also this forces any users (of the third party library providers) who don't have MKL license to re-distribute libiomp5md.dll attached to the library from the third party library providers with their applications.

Should users like above have MKL license ??

If so,I think this is very inconvenient because users may not know if the library from the library providers is linked with MKL.  

7 posts / 0 new
Last post
For more complete information about compiler optimizations, see our Optimization Notice.

The developer must have a commercial license to distribute an application using MKL, but the users don't require a license for the redistributable components.
As you say, the developer will not be able to conceal the usage of threaded MKL, and will need to provide for it in the installation scripting.

Thank you for the quick reply!

> the developer will not be able to conceal the usage of threaded MKL, and will need to provide for it in the installation scripting.
Yes,yes I know it.
What I want to know is 'Can the redistributable components (this case libiomp5md.dll only) be re-redistributed by the user without license ?'.
So far,evrything can be statically linked to the developer's application and 'the developer was able to conceal the usage of threaded MKL' which enables the user to distribute the statically linked MKL application.

Yes, the redistributable components may be provided along with an application to users who don't have a license, if the developer has the license.

Wao! Thank you again.

But my MKL agent told me that my users can not provide redistributable components to others.
What you told me is:
1. I can provide redistributable components to my users because I have license.
2. My users can provide redistributable components through my application to their users (which my agent told me not ...).

It may seem a technicality, but it looks that your agent is correct; the last point you made was explained further in

The redistributable libraries should be distributed by the holder of the license for use with an application developed under that license.
Unfortunately, several other references on the topic are incomplete or out-dated.

OK ...
I should agree with Igor Levicki.

Before Parallel Studio 2013,redistributable libraries need not be distributed because everything could be statically linked to single dll/exe.
Intel should allow any user to distribute libiomp5md.dll at least,or I can not upgrade MKL.

Leave a Comment

Please sign in to add a comment. Not a member? Join today