Re: [eigen] licensing: watching the MPL update process

[ Thread Index | Date Index | More Archives ]

Well, I would have 2 things to answer to that:
 - i'm only considering proposing to add the MPL as a third license
option, keeping the existing GPL and LGPL options
 - there are essentially only 2 weak copyleft licenses, the LGPL and
the MPL (not counting some derivatives of them) so one can't really
talk about license proliferation. Certain areas of free licenses are
definitely overcrowded, but weak copyleft rather suffers from a lack
of options. If you don't like the MPL v1's clause about California,
your only weak copyleft option is the LGPL. Not really my idea of
overcrowded! If the MPL v2 were a generally useful, simple, readable,
no-surprises weak copyleft licenses, it would be the first of its
kind. I know I wrote a lengthy FAQ to explain how there's no problem
with the LGPL in the case of Eigen, and I stand by my words, but the
fact that I had to write this page and the fact that I have to say "in
the case of Eigen" are not rejoicing.


2010/7/29 Keir Mierle <mierle@xxxxxxxxx>:
> I suggest staying with a standard open source license, such as *GPL*, MIT,
> BSD, etc. License proliferation is a problem that open source doesn't need
> more of.
> Keir
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>> Hi List,
>> I just wanted to let you know about this e-mail I just sent to
>> Mozilla's mailing list for the update of the MPL:
>> I am watching closely the MPL update process as it seems that the
>> upcoming MPL v2 has the potential to be a very good (simpler, more
>> readable) alternative to the LGPL v3. So don't be surprised if at some
>> point in the future I propose that we add the MPL v2 as an alternative
>> licensing option for Eigen! Of course it's too early now as the MPL v2
>> is still alpha, and of course it would need the agreement of every
>> copyright holder. Just looking far ahead and letting you know how I
>> feel.
>> Benoit

Mail converted by MHonArc 2.6.19+