Actually, it might not.

GPL(v2, at least) prevents you from refusing to distribute source to
your binaries or enforcing any license restrictions beyond the GPL on
the source.

I don't see, at a reading, any clauses on the binary.

- Rich

On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 5:41 AM, Rich <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> It would certainly block GPL software, I believe, but not, by far, everything.
>
> - Rich
>
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 5:16 AM, zxq9 <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> On 08/31/2012 05:35 AM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
>>>
>>> On 08/28/2012 04:40 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 08/23/2012 12:04 AM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm starting to build a set of rpm packages built with the Intel and
>>>>> Portland Group compilers. These would install in /opt and be accessible
>>>>> via modules. Would anyone be interested in collaborating on a public
>>>>> repository for such things? I really haven't thought much through at
>>>>> this point, just trying to gauge interest. Has anything like this
>>>>> already been done?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I went down the route of doing ICC builds a few years ago ( 2009 ) - and
>>>> had the entire CentOS-5 LAMP stack done, but was unable to get the nod
>>>> from Intel that what was being attempted was within their legal and aup
>>>> terms. Its a massive grey area, unless you have the license to
>>>> distribute the builds ( which is what mysql had ) - and its not cheap.
>>>>
>>>> Months of chasing intel's legal team resulted in nothing. So I gave up.
>>>> Let us know how you get on.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>  From the license agreement:
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> D. DISTRIBUTION: Distribution of the Redistributables is also subject to
>>> the
>>> following limitations: You (i) shall be solely responsible to your
>>> customers
>>> for any update or support obligation or other liability which may arise
>>> from the
>>> distribution, (ii) shall not make any statement that your product is
>>> "certified", or that its performance is guaranteed, by Intel, (iii)
>>> shall not
>>> use Intel's name or trademarks to market your product without written
>>> permission, (iv) shall use a license agreement that prohibits
>>> disassembly and
>>> reverse engineering of the Redistributables, (v) shall indemnify, hold
>>> harmless,
>>> and defend Intel and its suppliers from and against any claims or
>>> lawsuits,
>>> including attorney's fees, that arise or result from your distribution
>>> of any
>>> product.
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> I suspect (iii) is where they get you. How do you distribute a package
>>> named "hdf5-intel" for example? I suspect this is much like our use of
>>> TUV in the EL space. One perhaps could distribute "hdf5-i" "compiled
>>> with a notable compiler maker's software", but I'm not interested in that.
>>>
>>> For the time being I'm going to publish my sources at
>>> https://github.com/altccrpms/. Perhaps that will be of use to others.
>>>
>>> There is also the following though I'm not sure where that comes in:
>>>
>>> E. Intel(R) Integrated Performance Primitives (Intel IPP). The following
>>> terms and conditions apply only to the Intel IPP.
>>>
>>> i. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, if you
>>> implement the Sample Sources in your application or if you use Intel IPP
>>> to
>>> implement algorithms that are protected by others' licenses then you may
>>> need
>>> additional licenses from various entities. Should any such additional
>>> licenses
>>> be required, you are solely responsible for obtaining any such licenses
>>> and
>>> agree to obtain any such licenses at your own expense.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I think item (iv) is the blocker, not the trade name issue.
>>
>> I'm not a lawyer, but labeling a free (as in beer) distributable file
>> *-intel.rpm would probably not meet the definition of "market your product".
>> Anyway, getting their permission in writing could be resolved by getting
>> their permission in writing (probably not impossible).
>>
>> The problem would come with item (iv) where they place a use restriction (as
>> in restriction on freedom) on the distributable that is in conflict with the
>> Open Source Definition: "shall use a license agreement that prohibits
>> disassembly and reverse engineering of the distributables".
>>
>> Unaltered that would block distribution of any project under any open source
>> license I can think of.