On 20/11/13 19:56, Chris Barker wrote: > On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 3:06 AM, Henry Gomersall <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Yes, this didn't occur to me as an option, mostly because I'm keen for a > commercial FFTW license myself and it would gall me somewhat if I > couldn't gain the same benefit from my own code as others. > > So, given that, if anyone has an FFTW license and is keen for decent > Python wrappers, I'd be more than happy to discuss a sub-license to FFTW > in exchange for a more liberal (say MIT) license for pyFFTW. > > > > OT, and IANAL, but I think what you'd want to do is dual-licence > pyFFTW. Heck, you could even charge for a commercially-licenced version, > as it would only be useful to folks that were already paying for > a commercially-licenced FFTW
Apologies for the continued OT... I _have_ considered a commercial license, but so far, no knowledge of who might be interested. Again, not being a lawyer, I'm not even sure if this is clear cut and I can do it without a license myself (I think the GPL gets very confusing when it comes to runtime linking with some implementation of a published API, and interpreted languages make it even more so). So, I'll put this out there, if anyone has a need for python wrappers for a commercial FFTW, please get in touch. All options considered. :) Cheers, Henry _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
