Chris Samuel wrote:
> ----- "Brice Goglin" <Brice.Goglin_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> Hi Brice,
>
>
>> So, the actual problem would be that OMPI could not be
>> combined/distributed together with another GPL project
>> if OMPI shipped its own included libtopology?
>>
>
> That's my understanding, yes.
>
>
>> Out of curiosity, who's combining/distributing OMPI
>> like this?
>>
>
> A quick search shows Debian/Ubuntu ship parallel
> versions of Gromacs (GPL) built against OMPI (as
> well as LAM and MPICH), so there's one example.
>
> I believe Fedora also packages it and it's also
> packaged in the EPEL repository of Fedora packages
> for RHEL/CentOS. I believe those gromacs-mpi RPMs
> are only built against OMPI.
>
IANAL but I am not sure that *building* against OMPI would cause any
problem. My understanding of the licence is that the advertising stuff
is needed when you distribute something *containing* libtopology.
Gromacs doesn't contain libtopology, only OMPI does. Not sure at all
though...
That said, the advertising clause may still be a problem. I am waiting
for feedback from legal people here, but obviously it's not easy on
sunday morning in the middle of summer :)
Brice
|
![[Flag]](../../../../../community/mirrors/flag-us.gif){kind=small}