Hi, On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Robert Kern <[email protected]> wrote: > Of course, that's besides the point. Yes, pretty much everyone that likes > the BSD license of numpy will be okay with the minimal burdens the MPL2 lays > on them. The problem is that we need to properly communicate that license. > The PyPI page is not adequate to that task, in my opinion. I have no problem > with the project distributing such binaries anywhere else. But then, I have > no problem with the project distributing MKL binaries elsewhere either. > > On Mar 28, 2014 7:34 PM, "Nathaniel Smith" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 28 Mar 2014 20:26, "Robert Kern" <[email protected]> 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. >> >> AFAICT, the only way redistributers could violate the MPL would be if they >> unpacked our binary and deleted the license file. But this would also be a >> violation of the BSD. The only difference in terms of requirements on >> redistributors between MPL and BSD seems to be exactly *which* text you >> include in your license file.
I don't think even that would violate the MPL. The MPL says only that we - the distributors of binary code from an MPL project - must do this (3.1) "... inform recipients of the Executable Form how they can obtain a copy of such Source Code Form". It doesn't say we have to require the recipient to do the same [1], and it doesn't say that has to be in our license. I don't think it can mean that, because otherwise it would not make sense to say (in section 3.2) that we can "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.". The unmodified standard BSD license does not alter the recipients rights to the source code form of Eigen. >> I don't know if Eigen is a good choice on technical grounds (or even a >> possible one - has anyone ever actually compiled numpy against it?), but >> this license thing just doesn't seem like an important issue to me, if the >> alternative is not providing useful binaries. Am I correct in thinking we are all agreeing that it would be OK to distribute binary wheels for numpy from pypi, with compiled Eigen? See you, Matthew [1] "It's important to understand that the condition to distribute files under the MPL's terms only applies to the party that first creates and distributes the Larger Work." "https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
