Of course, that's besides the point. Yes, pretty much everyone that likes the BSD license of numpy will be okay with the minimal burdens the MPL2 lays on them. The problem is that we need to properly communicate that license. The PyPI page is not adequate to that task, in my opinion. I have no problem with the project distributing such binaries anywhere else. But then, I have no problem with the project distributing MKL binaries elsewhere either.
On 28 Mar 2014 20:26, "Robert Kern" <robert.kern@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@scipy.org
http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion