| Re: [eigen] moving forward with MPL2 |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen Archives
]
- To: eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [eigen] moving forward with MPL2
- From: Gael Guennebaud <gael.guennebaud@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 12:04:55 +0200
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Rb5+z5tJIASqQn/Er90cLwdsGiMxMUwPZkn4KTqhVGE=; b=mHQ09g2VYSy6I2oA7Kkr2j+TyyCjLoMqTCuT9rcorV5fxg96iLlsSdaisobJYAZlet 26Cd8/0cAZCxxKFyQ0whQdLCx9dmebihWNe3J3Xsc5SR0RmfZUnNF1t2RGTVbpcJ8YM9 apeEY7E5lTmxJHQXoSqEQRZ+YHsZ1oArzNZmU9029WpiY89gAPgrWxnj8JX7Jrw02q5b 1M1664umFXtcU8AIFFdHu/ZzYI+k6P5+cIX6ro833nHOOA+tvUpfWlm74NxqW80xU/L2 zymjerpbAuzMWIGjTKNgz1XpdBXXmPP5dZev4oCJr11bJOylhmuC6SpHtdS3ihHXqMIx BUXw==
oh right, now I remember this requires an additional note. sorry for the noise.
gael
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Gael Guennebaud
<gael.guennebaud@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> oh, I thought the MPL2 was made to be GPL compatible by design. So
> some subtleties showed up?
>
> gael
>
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 6:43 AM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Alright then, I just have to take the time to fully understand the
>> MPL2 GPL compatibility story so I can explain it here. Will do ASAP.
>>
>> Benoit
>>
>> 2012/6/13 Gael Guennebaud <gael.guennebaud@xxxxxxxxx>:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I don't remember there were strong concerns about MPL2-only. If a
>>> project like Mozilla is moving all its code to MPL2-only, I think it
>>> should be ok for us to do the same. I'm afraid a tri-licensing will
>>> significantly affect the main goal of the MPL2: simplicity!
>>>
>>> gael
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> Hi List,
>>>>
>>>> Can't believe it's been 6 months already!
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, the MPL2 relicensing effort has stalled out. I gather that the
>>>> main hesitations about it were:
>>>> 1. MPL2 is a new untested license
>>>> 2. status of GPL/LGPL compatibility not fully obvious from the license or FAQ
>>>>
>>>> Regarding 1. notice that since then, Mozilla has effectively
>>>> relicensed most of its code to MPL2, and all new code should be MPL2,
>>>> so there is in fact quite a bit of MPL2 code around now. But still,
>>>> not nearly as much as established licenses, of course.
>>>>
>>>> In my original proposal, I said that we should relicense to MPL2-only
>>>> instead of tri-licensing, as tri-licensing had proved a weak choice
>>>> for Mozilla, as it opened the door to GPL-only back-contributions that
>>>> we wouldn't be able to incorporate in the original product.
>>>>
>>>> However, 6 months after, it seems like a good time to ease corners a
>>>> bit to make at least something happen, as the statu quo (LGPL/GPL
>>>> only) is really not great.
>>>>
>>>> So how about this: relicense to MPL2 + existing LGPL3+/GPL2+ licenses
>>>> (i.e. tri-license)? At least this doesn't have a lot of possible
>>>> disadvantages compared to the current situation. The above-mentioned
>>>> loophope already exists with our present dual-license.
>>>>
>>>> Keeping the existing LGPL+GPL licenses should remove the above
>>>> concerns 1. and 2.
>>>>
>>>> Objections?
>>>>
>>>> Benoit
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>