|Re: [eigen] Re: Important: Relicensing Eigen to MPL2|
[ Thread Index |
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen Archives
- To: eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [eigen] Re: Important: Relicensing Eigen to MPL2
- From: Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 07:56:18 -0500
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=mRUgyZ65zjcCZB+HAhyv/Jhl4G5WifMyRdIGSbXszJA=; b=apVBGbUcrVGYtRY7mKIv9ARPwa3rOnIsbwqKLdYmT9PBZHgCNHb7CO1PXgoq1VTNCn Rx7JOV73A9yjd732CQ4WzfyIcgAFeqeOpXcoD/BgTA1rReK6G8mMEEiz7vv+Sblawjtf IU03iwwyfIj7acw71LQxXgvjnKnch77zTPVHg=
2012/1/17 Bastien ROUCARIES <roucaries.bastien@xxxxxxxxx>:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 4:08 AM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx> 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.
> Quoting FSF:
> Software under previous versions of the MPL can be upgraded to version
> 2.0, but any software that isn't already available under one of the
> listed GNU licenses must be marked as Incompatible With Secondary
> Licenses. This means that software that's only available under
> previous versions of the MPL is still incompatible with the GPL and
> So please document in copying that indeed you are compatible with GPL.
> Plain english text will alliviate some problem.
> Particularly remember clause 8. of MPL 2
> 8. Litigation
> Any litigation relating to this License may be brought only in the
> courts of a jurisdiction where the defendant maintains its principal
> place of business and such litigation shall be governed by laws of that
> jurisdiction, without reference to its conflict-of-law provisions.
> In pratice it means that you force reolution of ambiguity
> Because here a lot of people are french it is equivalent of the French
> civil code L1156:
> "On doit dans les conventions rechercher quelle a été la commune
> intention des parties contractantes, plutôt que de s'arrêter au sens
> littéral des termes."
> So please document that your rationnal during the license change, and
> that you keep GPL compatibility.
Thanks for the explanation: I will do that.
which I am currently asking the MoFo lawyers to explain to me, as I
don't understand all of it, see this thread: