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.