[Numpy-discussion] Default builds of OpenBLAS development branch are now fork safe

[Robert Kern]

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" <njs at pobox.com> wrote:

> On 28 Mar 2014 20:26, "Robert Kern" <robert.kern at gmail.com> 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
> NumPy-Discussion at scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20140328/8c6c6c98/attachment.html>