On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:21 PM, Brian Granger <[email protected]> wrote: >> Lets not count on doing so for now at least. There are license >> considerations to consider too--f2py is GPL and as such wouldn't make >> it into Python without relicensing. > > Mmmm, f2py ships with numpy and thus can't be GPL. The home page of > f2py lists is as LGPL. Now whether or not that is sufficient for > Python itself is another question.
Thanks for bringing this up. We'll have to discuss licensing/packaging issues in more detail later, and anything I say is open to correction from those more knowledgeable (Pearu, Dag, numpy/scipy/cython devs...). Our project won't be using the current f2py as exists in the numpy/scipy distribution. Instead we're using the fparser submodule from the G3 F2PY project for the fortran parsing. We'll be writing a cython backend to this parser to allow cython code to call fortran code. From the source code for the fparser module: (https://launchpad.net/f2py/) "Permission to use, modify, and distribute this software is given under the terms of the NumPy License. See http://scipy.org. NO WARRANTY IS EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK." The fparser module states it has a "BSD license (revised)." I see that the f2py page (version 2) has LGPL listed at the top, but the f2py (again, version 2) packaged with numpy has the same numpy licensing as listed in the source code. One of the licenses is out of date since numpy/scipy explicitly states that they won't package GPL or LGPL code. http://scipy.org/License_Compatibility The numpy/scipy license is apparently BSD-like (see http://scipy.org/FAQ and http://scipy.org/License_Compatibility). I've not delved into licensing issues in any great detail, and we'll have to look at this carefully when considering packaging, etc. At any rate, we'll work under the assumption that it is a separate dependency. Kurt _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
