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