Re: [Numpy-discussion] [SciPy-Dev] PyRSB: Python interface to librsb sparse matrices library

On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 5:26 PM, Sebastian Berg wrote:

On Sat, 2017-06-24 at 22:58 +0200, Carl Kleffner wrote:

...

Does this still apply: https://scipy.github.io/old-wiki/pages/License _Compatibility.html

Of course, but it talks about putting it into the code base of scipy not about being able to use the package in any way in a dependency (i.e. `import package`).

But scipy does bundle a lot of external packages and then the license is relevant. I have no idea if this would apply here, but I find Sylvain's question relevant if closer integration and usage within the scientific python, and maybe Julia, community is desired. LGPL is not as bad as GPL but still adds another hurdle, as far as I know the scipy and related history. Josef

- Sebastian

...

Carl

2017-06-24 22:07 GMT+02:00 Sebastian Berg

...

: On Sat, 2017-06-24 at 15:47 -0400, josef.pktd@gmail.com wrote:

...

On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 3:16 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:

...

On Jun 24, 2017 7:29 AM, "Sylvain Corlay"

...

...

...

wrote:

Also, one quick question: is the LGPL license a deliberate choice or is it not important to you? Most projects in the Python scientific stack are BSD licensed. So the LGPL choice makes it unlikely that a higher-level project adopts it as a dependency. If you are the only copyright holder, you would still have the possibility to license it under a more permissive license such as BSD or MIT...

Why would LGPL be a problem in a dependency? That doesn't stop you making your code BSD, and it's less restrictive license-wise

.com than

...

...

depending on MKL or the windows C runtime...

Is scipy still including any LGPL code, I thought not. There might still be some optional dependencies that not many users are using by default. ? Julia packages are mostly MIT, AFAIK. (except for the GPL parts because of cholmod, which we (?) avoid)

Well, I don't think scipy has many dependencies (but I would not be surprised if those are LGPL). Not a specialist, but as a dependency it should be fine (that is the point of the L in LGPL after all as far as I understand, it is much less viral). If you package it with your own stuff, you have to make sure to point out that parts are LGPL of course (just like there is a reason you get the GPL printed out with some devices) and if you modify it provide these modifications, etc.

Of course you cannot include it into the scipy codebase itself, but there is probably no aim of doing so here, so without a specific reason I would think that LGPL is a great license.

- Sebastian

...

Josef

...

-n

_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion