[Numpy-discussion] Default builds of OpenBLAS development branch are now fork safe

[Robert Kern]

The BSD license alters the recipient's rights. BSD binaries can be
redistributed without pointing to the sources.
On Mar 28, 2014 7:33 PM, "Matthew Brett" <matthew.brett at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Robert Kern <robert.kern at 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.
>
> I think the binary would be BSD because of section 3.2:
>
> "You may distribute such Executable Form under the terms of this
> License, or sublicense it under different terms, provided that the
> license for the Executable Form does not attempt to limit or alter the
> recipients' rights in the Source Code Form under this License."
>
> I think this is specifically saying - as long as our license (BSD)
> does not try and limit access to Eigen source, we can distribute our
> binary under our license.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Matthew
> _______________________________________________
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion at scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20140328/518f031f/attachment.html>