The BSD license alters the recipient's rights. BSD binaries can be redistributed without pointing to the sources. On Mar 28, 2014 7:33 PM, "Matthew Brett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, > > On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Robert Kern <[email protected]> > wrote: > > It's only a problem in that the binary will not be BSD, and we do need to > > communicate that appropriately. It will contain a significant component > that > > is MPL2 licensed. The terms that force us to include the link to the > Eigen > > source that we used forces downstream redistributors of the binary to do > the > > same. Now, of all the copyleft licenses, this is certainly the most > > friendly, but it is not BSD. > > I think the binary would be BSD because of section 3.2: > > "You may distribute such Executable Form under the terms of this > License, or sublicense it under different terms, provided that the > license for the Executable Form does not attempt to limit or alter the > recipients' rights in the Source Code Form under this License." > > I think this is specifically saying - as long as our license (BSD) > does not try and limit access to Eigen source, we can distribute our > binary under our license. > > Cheers, > > Matthew > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion >
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
