Re: [eigen] Re: Important: Relicensing Eigen to MPL2

[ Thread Index | Date Index | More Archives ]

2012/1/20 Radu B. Rusu <rusu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On 01/15/2012 07:08 PM, Benoit Jacob wrote:
>> Some more precisions (hit send too fast):
>> * Eigen currently contains some BSD-licensed code, like the Intel MKL
>> backend. This can stay BSD-licensed. Likewise, if you feel strongly
>> that you would prefer to contribute code under BSD license over MPL2
>> license, this can be discussed on a case by case basis but it's safe
>> to say that for self-contained parts, this should be OK.
>> * Eigen currently contains some LGPL-licensed third-party code, in
>> self-contained parts, like sparse solvers. This would have to remain
>> LGPL, but being self-contained makes it not a big issue. It will just
>> be a bit annoying to have to document this pitfall; if this becomes
>> too big of an annoyance, we could always contact the authors and ask
>> for permission to relicense their code.
>> * Eigen can interact with GPL-licensed code like FFTW. Our
>> understanding of the MPL2 license is that this is a non-issue: it
>> would simply be the responsibility of the user to ensure that they
>> comply with both the MPL2 and the GPL, if they use Eigen jointly with
>> GPL-licensed libraries.
> The last point is a bit worrisome. What would be a good mechanism to inform the user about which parts of Eigen should
> (s)he use and which not, if (s)he does have licensing constraints (i.e., cannot use GPL code)?

I have yet to continue my discussion with the MPL guys to fully
understand this, but the short answer is that MPL2 is compatible with
LGPL and GPL; so I don't currently see any way that this relicensing
would make things harder for people using Eigen with GPL'd or LGPL'd
software. I'll reply here when my understanding of these issues has


> Thanks,
> Radu.
> --

Mail converted by MHonArc 2.6.19+