On 30 Oct 2014 11:12, "Sturla Molden"
Nathaniel Smith
wrote: [*] Actually, we could, but the binaries would be tainted with a viral license.
And binaries linked with MKL are tainted by a proprietary license...
They
have very similar effects,
The MKL license is proprietary but not viral.
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. 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. -n