| Re: [eigen] legal question |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen Archives
]
- To: eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [eigen] legal question
- From: Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 18:03:54 -0400
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=AwVjUsXzOwSoTbbRY1hNljCO3DHDoZNgHPbEwy2/qqs=; b=QOlQXOwgBLHsLaeWAYmu6aDQ2qhN4GPE68LJj96E+dHmzqlnftrcWevXRwcrxDAeXw sjVfmXV5m+RG1wHUL9hZWNwpMYZLwueh7/g+WSb54jvkr//0ZMgVBbVaa4rCmFkAJowR Hyi8FtZLx52kuJEd/w+cv+eGCXJq99sYKLDPM=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=H8M4PchfvV+J6Dl+rCVzoSxkKcrrk8GKirqH+9tMuagfuQFDn9KSYwCd+++wSqAS3E gcn9nIdxFdABaXJnP+n9v7ncvsZI8VaL+zYeov8PFmhVYUoyoIjN8xCdZsUGd5RYNDP9 l4fdKWu6iLHfBDkdq/yhw5v5COpQ71y0PzbeI=
2010/7/23 Keir Mierle <mierle@xxxxxxxxx>:
> +1 to CC-attribution
> -1 to CC-share alike. That makes the license viral
aaaaaaaaargh
Everytime someone uses the word 'viral' to refer to copyleft, the
aztec gods kill some kittens and Bill Gates has a burst of evil
laughter.
> like the GPL. Is in
> really necessary?
I just wanted to emulate the kind of weak copyleft as offered by the
LGPL and MPL licenses.
It could well be, indeed, that CC-BY-SA is actually closer to GPL: I
just don't know!
So we have 2 questions to answer:
- do we indeed need some sort of weak-copyleft for the documentation
or are we OK to release documentation under a slap-me-in-the-face
license?
- if we do want some sort of weak-copyleft for documentation, what
license would offer that? Is the SA in CC-BY-SA a too strong form of
copyleft?
Benoit
> Keir
>
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> You do well to ask: indeed, we forgot to pick a free license for our
>> documentation. We need to do that for a variety of reasons. Debian
>> among others is distributing our documentation:
>> http://packages.debian.org/unstable/doc/libeigen2-doc
>>
>> There are 2 mainstream licenses that would make sense for us:
>> - GNU FDL
>> - CC BY-SA
>>
>> This page is a good read on this topic:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License
>>
>> My feeling is that we're a little better off with the slightly simpler
>> CC license. It seems simpler because (AFAIK) it just doesn't have
>> provisions of Cover Text / Invariant Sections. It's also nice that CC
>> licenses like CC BY-SA make it clear in their very name what they are
>> doing. No strong opinion though.
>>
>> Our wiki has defaulted to the FDL 1.2 but since there are few
>> copyright holders, it should be easy enough to relicense. We must have
>> compatible licenses for the wiki and docs, to allow moving content
>> between them.
>>
>> OK for CC BY-SA ?
>>
>> Benoit
>>
>> 2010/7/22 Helmut Jarausch <jarausch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I'm selling my lecture notes in C++ to my students below cost.
>> > I'd like to attach Eigen's QuickRefPage (including the URL) as an
>> > appendix.
>> >
>> > Are there any legal problems about this?
>> >
>> > Helmut.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Helmut Jarausch
>> > Lehrstuhl fuer Numerische Mathematik
>> > RWTH - Aachen University
>> > D 52056 Aachen, Germany
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>