[Numpy-discussion] performance matrix multiplication vs. matlab

Bruce Southey bsouthey@gmail....
Mon Jan 18 13:10:01 CST 2010


On 01/18/2010 12:47 PM, Vicente Sole wrote:
> Quoting Bruce Southey <bsouthey@gmail.com>:
>
>>
>> If you obtain the code from any package then you are bound by the terms
>> of that code. So while a user might not be 'inconvenienced' by the LGPL,
>> they are required to meet the terms as required. For some licenses (like
>> the LGPL) these terms do not really apply until you distribute the code
>> but that does not mean that the user is exempt from the licensing terms
>> of that code because they have not distributed their code (yet).
>>
>> Furthermore there are a number of numpy users that download the numpy
>> project for further distribution such as Enthought, packagers for Linux
>> distributions and developers of projects like Python(x,y). Some of these
>> users would be inconvenienced because binary-only distributions would
>> not be permitted in any form.
>>
>
> I think people are confusing LGPL and GPL...
Not at all.

>
> I can distribute my code in binary form without any restriction when 
> using an LGPL library UNLESS I have modified the library itself. 

I do not interpret the LGPL version 3 in this way:
A "Combined Work" is a work produced by combining or linking an 
Application with the Library.
So you must apply section 4, in particular, provide the "Minimal 
Corresponding Source":
The "Minimal Corresponding Source" for a Combined Work means the 
Corresponding Source for the Combined Work, excluding any source code 
for portions of the Combined Work that, considered in isolation, are 
based on the Application, and not on the Linked Version.

So a binary-only is usually not appropriate.

Bruce

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20100118/0f62fe50/attachment.html 


More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list