On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 at 18:39, Miro Hrončok <mhron...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On 01. 07. 20 16:24, Ben Cotton wrote: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FlexiBLAS_as_BLAS/LAPACK_manager > > > > == Summary == > > BLAS/LAPACK packages will be compiled against the FlexiBLAS wrapper > > library, which will set OpenBLAS as system-wide default backend, and > > at the same time will provide a proper switching mechanism that > > currently Fedora lacks. > > > > ... > > > > == Scope == > > * Proposal owners: Modify the SPECs of the BLAS/LAPACK-dependent > > packages to build against FlexiBLAS instead of the current backend > > they are using. > > I wonder, given FlexiBLAS is released under GPL (and not LGPL), whether this > means we would need to change the licenses of all non-GPL packages that will > be > linked to FlexiBLAS to GPL. > > CCing legal.
I'm no expert, but the FAQ says: "You have a GPLed program that I'd like to link with my code to build a proprietary program. Does the fact that I link with your program mean I have to GPL my program? (#LinkingWithGPL) Not exactly. It means you must release your program under a license compatible with the GPL (more precisely, compatible with one or more GPL versions accepted by all the rest of the code in the combination that you link). The combination itself is then available under those GPL versions." So my understanding is that it's ok for a program to link to FlexiBLAS if its license is GPL-compatible, not necessarily GPL. But of course we would need confirmation from legal. -- Iñaki Úcar _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- firstname.lastname@example.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://email@example.com