Carl Kleffner <[email protected]> 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. Sturla _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
