On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 9:17 AM, Henry Gomersall <h...@cantab.net> wrote: > On 19/11/13 16:08, Stéfan van der Walt wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 6:03 PM, Henry Gomersall<h...@cantab.net> wrote: >>> >However, FFTW is dual licensed GPL/commercial and so the wrappers are >>> >also GPL by necessity. >> I'm not sure if that is true, strictly speaking--you may license your >> wrapper code under any license you wish. It's just that it becomes >> confusing when the combined work then has to be released under GPL. > > This is on shaky GPL ground. I'm inclined to agree with you, but given > any usage necessarily has to link against the FFTW libs, any resultant > redistribution is going to be GPL by necessity. I.e. pyFFTW is useless > without FFTW so it's just simpler to make it GPL for the time being.
The case where it makes a difference is when someone has purchased a commercial license to FFTW and then wants to use it from their proprietary Python application. -n _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
