Re: Re: Bits about Intel MKL packaging -- Higher Priority than OpenBLAS
On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 10:03:38AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>
> On 2 May 2018 at 14:41, Lumin wrote:
> | Seems that things are getting more complicated. Recall that here we'are
> | going to prevent users from GPL violation in situations such as this
> | one:
> |
> | debootstrap; apt install libmkl-rt; apt install octave; octave ... (1)
>
> Are you sure? I do not think that is correct. Downloading and installating
> MKL, and running it with R or Octave (or any other package linking the BLAS
> interface) does not constitute a GPL violation AFAIK.
Not sure. I admit that I'm not good at long licences such as GPL.
Whether it violates GPL or not, what we do in config/postinst won't
change: make sure it's the user's explicit choice to use MKL as the
default BLAS/LAPACK implementation, and in contrast, MKL will not be
used without the explicit choice.
> (There may well be limitations on further redistribution of the aggregate
> even though even the MKL now limits redistribution as it is of course still a
> no-source-code piece of software.)
Intel's ISSL license allows redistribution, as long as no file is
changed.
> Thanks for all your work on this though. Much appreciated.
>
> Dirk
>
> --
> http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | edd@debian.org
Reply to: