[Numpy-discussion] FFTS for numpy's FFTs (was: Re: Choosing between NumPy and SciPy functions)

[Matthew Brett]

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:
>
> https://github.com/numpy/numpy/wiki/Numerical-software-on-Windows#blas--lapack-libraries
>
> 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.

Matthew