[Numpy-discussion] MKL and OpenBLAS
sturla.molden at gmail.com
Sun Feb 2 19:36:24 EST 2014
Carl Kleffner <cmkleffner at gmail.com> wrote:
> If you work in an academia world it can be relevant once third parties
> are involved in a bigger project. A situation may be reached, where you
> just have to prove the license situation of all of your software components.
If you involve third parties outside academia, you need a commercial
license. Binaries with academic license is for academic use only.
Personally I pay Enthought Inc. to provide me with NumPy, and then it's
their responsibility to work out the license details in their software
stack. I am licensing my Python software from Enthought Inc., and I cannot
go through and verify every single one of their licenses. If asked I will
just refer to the license that comes with my Canopy subscription, and that
will be the end of it.
> Numpy and scipy is 'selled' as BSD or MIT based foundation for scientific
> software without components with copyleft licences. For the MKL part a
> clear statement would be welcome. Otherwise the usage of MKL based
> binaries has to be avoided in such situations, even if you don't sell something.
That is utter nonsence. MKL is not different from any other commercial
software. With this way of backwards thinking, no commercial software could
ever be used. You could e.g. never use Windows, because you might be asked
to prove Microsoft's license for third-party libraries used by their
operating system. That is just bullshit. I might be asked to prove my
license with Microsoft, but it's Microsoft's responsibility to work out the
internal license details for the software they sell.
More information about the NumPy-Discussion