[Numpy-discussion] FFTS for numpy's FFTs (was: Re: Choosing between NumPy and SciPy functions)
matthew.brett at gmail.com
Thu Oct 30 13:56:41 EDT 2014
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 4:28 AM, Nathaniel Smith <njs at pobox.com> wrote:
>> On 30 Oct 2014 11:12, "Sturla Molden" <sturla.molden at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Nathaniel Smith <njs at pobox.com> 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.
> I wrote a summary of the MKL license problems here:
> In summary, if you distribute something with the MKL you have to:
> * require your users to agree to a license forbidding them from
> reverse-engineering the MKL
> * indemnify Intel against being sued as a result of using MKL in your binaries
Sorry - I should point out that this last 'indemnify' clause is
"including attorney's fees". Meaning that, if someone sues Intel
because of your software, you have to pay Intel's attorney's fees.
More information about the NumPy-Discussion