Re: [eigen] Usage of Eigen2 in a closed source application

["Benoit Jacob" <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>]

I see, thanks for the explanation.

The next thing I'd be interested in, is a confirmation that the LGPL
allows usage by closed source software, even in the case of a
headers-only library. Of course I'm 99% positive that this is the case
but an informed confirmation wouldn't hurt.

If indeed this is the case, then I say that our licensing is just fine
and we don't change anything just because some corporate guys don't
like the three letters g,p,l. It's not _that_ important to me to
maximize usage of Eigen...

If on the other hand there really is a problem with LGPL3 and
header-only libraries then yes we need to add one more licensing
option. If it's just an ambiguity then it may be enough to just add an
addendum to the LGPL.

I'm quite opposed to distributing Eigen without any back-contribution
requirement... one can discuss, then, whether it'll make any
difference in practice.

Cheers,
Benoit

2008/12/14 Keir Mierle <mierle@xxxxxxxxx>:
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 3:32 PM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>>
>> 2008/12/14 FMDSPAM <fmdspam@xxxxxxxxx>:
>> > I have read your emails beforehand :-) . Yes Eigen2 is really amazing
>> > and
>> > seems to me very agile.
>> > My focus are the sparse linear algebra for FEA-like stuff at first But I
>> > am
>> > really impressed of the wide range of performance gifts, eigen2 is able
>> > to
>> > spent. I really like the idea to only deal with one lib in a consistent
>> > design for all my linear algebra.
>>
>> If you're mostly interested in the Sparse module, note that it's still
>> considered experimental, although it is probably going to become
>> stable (i.e. API stability guaranteed) in about 6 monthes as Gael is
>> currently working on potentially making KDE 4.3 rely on it.
>>
>> > For me, legal issues are always somewhat like quirky nitpicking. So, I
>> > am
>> > sorry for my quirks contribution here, really.
>>
>> Np, actually my main concern regarding licensing is to allow everybody
>> to use Eigen just so we don't have to deal with any licensing issues.
>>
>> That's how I meant the LGPL when I chose it.
>>
>> If you ever find that the LGPL doesn't allow you to use Eigen then
>> tell us and we'll consider relicensing.
>>
>> If it turns out that the BSD does provide the same back-contribution
>> guarantee in our case, then why not add it as a license choice (so
>> we'd triple-license).
>
> There is no back-contribution requirement in the BSD license. The BSD
> license is one of the easiest to read:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_license
>
> The nicest part of a BSD license is that it's easy for companies to approve
> usage. With higher uptake in commercial products, hopefully more developers
> will use Eigen, and contributions will flow back. However, there is no
> requirement for contributions.
>
> It's a tough call which is better for a core numerical library such as Eigen
> (bsd vs lgpl). There are arguments on both sides. Some companies are
> GPL-phobic, even LGPL, so it is not unimaginable that an eigen developer
> might end up not being able to use eigen at work. However there is a higher
> chance to fork with the BSD license. For my project, libmv, I chose the MIT
> license because I wanted to encourage companies to use it and improve it
> because there are a limited number of free software hackers that are also
> computer vision experts. I am willing to take the chance that some companies
> will use the software without releasing their contributions. With Eigen, the
> situation is a bit different because of the wide appeal.
>
> Keir
>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Benoit
>>
>> ---
>>
>
>

---