It would certainly block GPL software, I believe, but not, by far, everything.
- Rich On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 5:16 AM, zxq9 <[email protected]> wrote: > On 08/31/2012 05:35 AM, Orion Poplawski wrote: >> >> On 08/28/2012 04:40 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote: >>> >>> On 08/23/2012 12:04 AM, Orion Poplawski wrote: >>>> >>>> I'm starting to build a set of rpm packages built with the Intel and >>>> Portland Group compilers. These would install in /opt and be accessible >>>> via modules. Would anyone be interested in collaborating on a public >>>> repository for such things? I really haven't thought much through at >>>> this point, just trying to gauge interest. Has anything like this >>>> already been done? >>>> >>> >>> I went down the route of doing ICC builds a few years ago ( 2009 ) - and >>> had the entire CentOS-5 LAMP stack done, but was unable to get the nod >>> from Intel that what was being attempted was within their legal and aup >>> terms. Its a massive grey area, unless you have the license to >>> distribute the builds ( which is what mysql had ) - and its not cheap. >>> >>> Months of chasing intel's legal team resulted in nothing. So I gave up. >>> Let us know how you get on. >>> >>> >> >> From the license agreement: >> >> --- >> >> D. DISTRIBUTION: Distribution of the Redistributables is also subject to >> the >> following limitations: You (i) shall be solely responsible to your >> customers >> for any update or support obligation or other liability which may arise >> from the >> distribution, (ii) shall not make any statement that your product is >> "certified", or that its performance is guaranteed, by Intel, (iii) >> shall not >> use Intel's name or trademarks to market your product without written >> permission, (iv) shall use a license agreement that prohibits >> disassembly and >> reverse engineering of the Redistributables, (v) shall indemnify, hold >> harmless, >> and defend Intel and its suppliers from and against any claims or >> lawsuits, >> including attorney's fees, that arise or result from your distribution >> of any >> product. >> >> --- >> >> I suspect (iii) is where they get you. How do you distribute a package >> named "hdf5-intel" for example? I suspect this is much like our use of >> TUV in the EL space. One perhaps could distribute "hdf5-i" "compiled >> with a notable compiler maker's software", but I'm not interested in that. >> >> For the time being I'm going to publish my sources at >> https://github.com/altccrpms/. Perhaps that will be of use to others. >> >> There is also the following though I'm not sure where that comes in: >> >> E. Intel(R) Integrated Performance Primitives (Intel IPP). The following >> terms and conditions apply only to the Intel IPP. >> >> i. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, if you >> implement the Sample Sources in your application or if you use Intel IPP >> to >> implement algorithms that are protected by others' licenses then you may >> need >> additional licenses from various entities. Should any such additional >> licenses >> be required, you are solely responsible for obtaining any such licenses >> and >> agree to obtain any such licenses at your own expense. >> >> > > I think item (iv) is the blocker, not the trade name issue. > > I'm not a lawyer, but labeling a free (as in beer) distributable file > *-intel.rpm would probably not meet the definition of "market your product". > Anyway, getting their permission in writing could be resolved by getting > their permission in writing (probably not impossible). > > The problem would come with item (iv) where they place a use restriction (as > in restriction on freedom) on the distributable that is in conflict with the > Open Source Definition: "shall use a license agreement that prohibits > disassembly and reverse engineering of the distributables". > > Unaltered that would block distribution of any project under any open source > license I can think of.
