Wed, 10 Feb 1999 13:20:38 -0500 (EST)
> > FTTW is GPL (not LGPL), which means that inclusion in any kind of
> > package leaves me out (I'm also writing commercial software in
> > python).
> I know this is a side issue, but has anyone asked the authors of FFTW
> about whether they would consider LGPL'ing it? I have been `in the market'
> for a fast, flexible, open-source C implementation of multi-dimensional
> FFT's for many years, and FFTW has been the first package that has come
> along that has hit all of the requirements dead-on. The authors state
> their intention of it becoming a de-facto standard, so maybe the change of
> licence would be something they would be amenable to...
I quote from the FFTW FAQ:
Question 1.3. Is FFTW free software?
Starting with version 1.3, FFTW is Free Software in the technical sense
defined by the Free Software Foundation (see Categories of Free and
Non-Free Software), and is distributed under the terms of the GNU General
Public License. Previous versions of FFTW were distributed without fee
for noncommercial use, but were not technically ``free.''
Non-free licenses for FFTW are also available that permit different
Question 1.4. What is this about non-free licenses?
The non-free licenses are for companies that wish to use FFTW in
their products but are unwilling to release their software under the
GPL (which would require them to release source code and allow free
redistribution). Such users can purchase an unlimited-use license from
MIT. Contact us for more details.
We could instead have released FFTW under the LGPL, or even disallowed
non-Free usage. Suffice it to say, however, that MIT owns the copyright to
FFTW and they only let us GPL it because we convinced them that it would
neither affect their licensing revenue nor irritate existing licensees.
Andrew. email@example.com | Me: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~asterian
Faith is the willingness to get out of bed in the morning and just show up...
-- Richard Thieme