No, the license does not contain a pointer to the Eigen sources, which is required.
https://bitbucket.org/eigen/eigen/src/fabd880592ac3343713cc07e7287098afd0f18ca/COPYING.MPL2?at=default On Mar 28, 2014 7:34 PM, "Nathaniel Smith" <[email protected]> wrote: > On 28 Mar 2014 20:26, "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. > > AFAICT, the only way redistributers could violate the MPL would be if they > unpacked our binary and deleted the license file. But this would also be a > violation of the BSD. The only difference in terms of requirements on > redistributors between MPL and BSD seems to be exactly *which* text you > include in your license file. > > I don't know if Eigen is a good choice on technical grounds (or even a > possible one - has anyone ever actually compiled numpy against it?), but > this license thing just doesn't seem like an important issue to me, if the > alternative is not providing useful binaries. > > -n > > _______________________________________________ > 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
