On Sat, 4 Jul 2020 at 16:20, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Would the maintainer consider switching the whole thing to LGPLv3? > > > This would preserve the freeness of his code and be much less hassle > > > for everyone involved, with no interpretation of new legal texts required. > > > > LGPL has other implications towards proprietary software, and that's > > what the authors specifically want to protect, so that's a hard line. > > I'm not sure what you mean. LGPL keeps the code free but allows it to be > freely combined with software under different licenses, which is what we > want in this case. Yeap, but it's more permissive also with the FlexiBLAS interface (the one that enables hooking into the duplicated BLAS/LAPACK interface, the one that BLAS/LAPACK consumers are not using), and this is what the authors do not want. > > Wouldn't the Classpath Exception [1] be appropriate here? This > > wouldn't require the interpretation of a new legal text. > > Classpath exception talks about "executable". This isn't very precise, > but at least in normal speech, a library is not an executable, so the > classpath exception would not cover other libraries which link to > flexiblass. So for example, numpy would not be covered by the exception. True. But what about the "Linking over a controlled interface exception"? That sounds like exactly this case: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#LinkingOverControlledInterface -- Iñaki Úcar _______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
