On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Matthew Brett <matthew.br...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 4:28 AM, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote: >> On 30 Oct 2014 11:12, "Sturla Molden" <sturla.mol...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote: >>> >>> >> [*] Actually, we could, but the binaries would be tainted with a viral >>> >> license. >>> > >>> > And binaries linked with MKL are tainted by a proprietary license... >>> > They >>> > have very similar effects, >>> >>> The MKL license is proprietary but not viral. >> >> If you like, but I think you are getting confused by the vividness of >> anti-GPL rhetoric. GPL and proprietary software are identical in that you >> have to pay some price if you want to legally redistribute derivative works >> (e.g. numpy + MKL/FFTW + other software). For proprietary software the price >> is money and other random more or less onerous conditions (e.g. >> anti-benchmarking and anti-reverse-engineering clauses are common). For GPL >> software the price is that you have to let people reuse your source code for >> free. That's literally all that "viral" means. > > I wrote a summary of the MKL license problems here: > > https://github.com/numpy/numpy/wiki/Numerical-software-on-Windows#blas--lapack-libraries > > In summary, if you distribute something with the MKL you have to: > > * require your users to agree to a license forbidding them from > reverse-engineering the MKL > * indemnify Intel against being sued as a result of using MKL in your binaries
Sorry - I should point out that this last 'indemnify' clause is "including attorney's fees". Meaning that, if someone sues Intel because of your software, you have to pay Intel's attorney's fees. Matthew _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
