On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 at 18:39, Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 01. 07. 20 16:24, Ben Cotton wrote: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FlexiBLAS_as_BLAS/LAPACK_manager > > > > == Summary == > > BLAS/LAPACK packages will be compiled against the FlexiBLAS wrapper > > library, which will set OpenBLAS as system-wide default backend, and > > at the same time will provide a proper switching mechanism that > > currently Fedora lacks. > > > > ... > > > > == Scope == > > * Proposal owners: Modify the SPECs of the BLAS/LAPACK-dependent > > packages to build against FlexiBLAS instead of the current backend > > they are using. > > I wonder, given FlexiBLAS is released under GPL (and not LGPL), whether this > means we would need to change the licenses of all non-GPL packages that will be > linked to FlexiBLAS to GPL. > > CCing legal. Ok, let me recap here, because I wasn't subscribed to the legal list. Basically, FlexiBLAS is a wrapper for an API (BLAS/LAPACK) that is BSD. But to act as a wrapper, a program needs to link against the part of FlexiBLAS that replicates that API, and they just connect symbols to the appropriate backend (this is use 1). On the other hand, FlexiBLAS provides another API that allows programs to hook into the first API, profile, debug, switch the backend in real time... (this is use 2). Here we are talking about use 1, and the question is whether this can be considered under the exception of a "system library", as defined in the first section of GPLv3. If not, the program must be GPL-compatible? Or the program needs to change the license altogether? I contacted the upstream maintainer about this, and he really wants to permit the use case in this change proposal (I've been working with him 3 weeks to fix bugs and bring a suitable version to Fedora for this), so if this can't be considered a "system library", he is willing to add an exception to the license. This is what he told me: > About the linking problem I could think of an exception, similar to the linking exception in gcc/glibc, which coincides with our "Free for free use" idea. I could add that FlexiBLAS is allowed to be linked against free software with an OSI approved license as none of the flexiblas headers are used at compile-time. In this way all open-source software can use FlexiBLAS no matter if it is BSD/MIT/APACHE/GPL code but those who want to use the special features like switching BLAS within the program or developing debug hooks like the profile hook, have to be compatible to GPL. Is this possible? Would this be accepted? Thanks. -- Iñaki Úcar _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-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/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
