|[eigen] Switch to LGPL 3 ?|
[ Thread Index | Date Index | More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen Archives ]
Hi List, Last time I proposed a switch to LGPL 3, the main objection was compatibility with KDE. Now that KDE is switching to LGPL3/GPL3, this objection vanishes. You probably saw my CC'd mail to the FSF discussion list. It is being held for moderation as I'm not a member, I don't know for how long, anyway I don't hope much anymore from it. I have looked at the LGPL text and I think I am confident enough that the needed changes have been applied to the LGPL, in order to make it usable for us. Quoting http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html : > “The Library” refers to a covered work governed by this License, other than > an Application or a Combined Work as defined below. An “Application” is any > work that makes use of an interface provided by the Library, but which is > not otherwise based on the Library. Defining a subclass of a class defined > by the Library is deemed a mode of using an interface provided by the > Library. A “Combined Work” is a work produced by combining or linking an > Application with the Library. The particular version of the Library with > which the Combined Work was made is also called the “Linked Version”. So far so good: the above definitions handle the non-linking case. Anyway, the following section handles explicitly the case of #included code: > 3. Object Code Incorporating Material from Library Header Files. > The object code form of an Application may incorporate material from a > header file that is part of the Library. You may convey such object code > under terms of your choice, provided that, if the incorporated material is > not limited to numerical parameters, data structure layouts and accessors, > or small macros, inline functions and templates (ten or fewer lines in > length), you do both of the following: a) Give prominent notice with each > copy of the object code that the Library is used in it and that the Library > and its use are covered by this License. b) Accompany the object code with > a copy of the GNU GPL and this license document. This is a bit annoying in my opinion, but keep in mind that in the case of a traditional linked library, there are even more annoying clauses and nobody seems to complain. I have a feeling that these clauses are often overlooked and nobody cares to enforce them, which is a perverse situation, but I'm not out there to solve all the problems of software licensing. So, OK to relicense? I'm interested in everybody's answers, especially Michael's as he holds a copyright on one existing file. Cheers, Benoit
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
|Mail converted by MHonArc 2.6.19+||http://listengine.tuxfamily.org/|