On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 9:27 PM, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote: > On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 9:09 PM, Chris Barker <chris.bar...@noaa.gov> wrote: >> On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Robert Kern <robert.k...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I don't think permission from Intel is the blocking issue for putting >>> these binaries up on PyPI. Even with Intel's permission, we would be putting >>> up proprietary binaries on a page that is explicitly claiming that the files >>> linked therein are BSD-licensed. The binaries could not be redistributed >>> with any GPLed module, say, pygsl. >>> >>> We could host them on numpy.org on their own page that clearly explained >>> the license of those files, but I think PyPI is out. >> >> Can't PyPi re-direct -- so they can actualy be hosted somewhere else, but >> "pip install numpy" would still work? > > There's two issues here: (1) we can't actually use the intel stuff > (MKL, icc) under its regular license without having our release > managers accepting personal liability. Which isn't going to happen. > (2) The problem isn't whether they're hosted on PyPI, it's whether the > people downloading them get warned about what they're downloading. The > whole point is that we *don't* want 'pip install numpy' to work in > this case, because it's too seamless.
I'd add Robert's point - we will have made the default install something that is not compatible with GPL libraries, Matthew _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
