examples of realistic multiprocessing usage?

[Adam Tauno Williams]

On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 13:55 +0000, Albert van der Horst wrote: 
> In article <mailman.842.1295212943.6505.python-list at python.org>,
> Philip Semanchuk  <philip at semanchuk.com> wrote:
> <SNIP>
> >I grepped through the code to see that it's using =
> >multiprocessing.Listener. I didn't go any further than that because our =
> >project is BSD licensed and the license for Gluino is unclear. Until I =
> >find out whether or not its under an equally permissive license, I can't =
> >borrow ideas and/or code from it.
> You have been brain washed by the Intellectual Properties congsy.
> Of course you can read through code to borrow idea's from it.

I wouldn't; and there is no brain-washing.

It is very unwise to look at GPL'd code if you are working on a non-GPL
project; the GPL is specifically and intentionally viral.  The
distinction between reading-through-code-and-borrowing-ideas and
copying-code is thin and best left to lawyers.

Aside: Comments to the contrary often stand-on-their-head to make such
cases.  For example: 

"You do have a choice under the GPL license: you can stop using the
stolen code and write your own, or you can decide you'd rather release
under the GPL. But the choice is yours. If you say, I choose neither,
then the court can impose an injunction to stop you from further
distribution, but it won't order your code released under the GPL. ...
Of course, you could avoid all such troubles in the first place by not
stealing GPL code to begin with"
<http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031214210634851> 

Seriously?  What that basically means is you can't use GPL'd code in a
non-GPL'd product/project. Saying if you do it is OK, but you'll be
required to replace the code or change your license is
standing-on-ones-head.  Risking a forced reimplementation of a core
component of an existing application is 'just nuts'.