Actually, it might not. GPL(v2, at least) prevents you from refusing to distribute source to your binaries or enforcing any license restrictions beyond the GPL on the source.
I don't see, at a reading, any clauses on the binary. - Rich On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 5:41 AM, Rich <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
