<p dir="ltr">On 30 Oct 2014 11:12, "Sturla Molden" <<a href="mailto:sturla.molden@gmail.com">sturla.molden@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Nathaniel Smith <<a href="mailto:njs@pobox.com">njs@pobox.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> >> [*] Actually, we could, but the binaries would be tainted with a viral<br>
> >> license.<br>
> ><br>
> > And binaries linked with MKL are tainted by a proprietary license... They<br>
> > have very similar effects,<br>
><br>
> The MKL license is proprietary but not viral.</p>
<p dir="ltr">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.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Which of these prices you find more affordable will depend on your circumstances. Either way it's just something to take into account before redistributing "tainted" binaries.</p>
<p dir="ltr">-n</p>