| Re: [eigen] about eigen's documentation's license |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen Archives
]
- To: eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [eigen] about eigen's documentation's license
- From: Gael Guennebaud <gael.guennebaud@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 14:42:00 +0100
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=jlKdYckXIgd0SKRQ0atiXTyTSXIx/F/qbPlDKwUu+cE=; b=nMwj1PqhbY7l9IZghzqfbCYJpWrHOW7TifUWAOeo1Z92Ii5XLB6JXEUIZl2Am6SouB v8VyO3ad8OWvwLsOOloLBXw1fYtBOESERl5NtMvV8+6Vw0X6XN5XrTyh7y+OwuqciqgI 3T1jmgxmgeKIVuGkdVrhIEJEhPvvkxi4FXo84=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; b=Rpw+Bi5C2LJzxrW6A3AjBr8i9kkGLVSrp5l6K4O/KhQ0w7idlgH7v3oC9DbUTVZpBT BcGcXlI7s4eWKc4tNvsgLCCNaO/2Vwc29SOMa7ivWLfuSlyE6M+3Hgr6ooTozK/Z6iZn QMuZtf6e2qE/ZqXYWUz0w/sJh5Kd+n+WSxScs=
yes, if we can keep the same license for the code and documentation
that's definitely the best to do.
The LICENSING.txt file could also contains our current licensing faq,
or, in other words we could simply extend the current FAQ, and to
avoid duplication we could move it into a LICENSING.txt file and
include it on the web page using such automatic link:
https://bitbucket.org/eigen/eigen/raw/tip/LICENSING.txt
gael
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A few months ago Helmut inquired about our documentation's license and
> we didn't really know. There was agreement that we wanted a liberal
> documentation licensing, and at the same time we wanted to freely copy
> and paste Eigen code into the docs (not to mention automatic
> generation with Doxygen).
>
> Helmut just wanted to be able to append Eigen documentation at the end
> of his textbook without affecting his own textbook's licensing. In
> spirit, this is something that the LGPL should allow, but we were very
> unsure about the definition of a 'derivative work' in this case.
>
> Since then I've talked with a Mozilla lawyer about the notion of a
> derivative work and I've been confirmed that it's very fuzzy and left
> to human appreciation.
>
> So I would propose: let's officially put our documentation under the
> same LGPL licensing as the rest of Eigen; and let's add a
> LICENSING.txt file clarifying our intent wrt derivative works for
> documentation. We can even give the append-at-end-of-book example. Do
> you agree?
>
> For the record, it was about the MPLv2 specifically that I asked the
> Mozilla lawyer, and in the case of the MPL it's a lot more precise
> since it's file-based, so if we were using the MPL, and Helmut kept
> our documentation in separate files from his own text, then he would
> be fine even without us having to add such a LICENSING.txt file to
> clarify this. That said, there are tons of obvious loopholes against
> such file-based licensing, which the Mozilla lawyer acknowledged, so
> even file-based licensing is still very much dependent on human
> appreciation.
>
> Cheers,
> Benoit
>
>
>