|Re: [eigen] Important: Relicensing Eigen to MPL2|
[ Thread Index |
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen Archives
- To: eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [eigen] Important: Relicensing Eigen to MPL2
- From: Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 14:21:53 -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=+MdkFjgtWIwZQ2dVls4EEd5lSxokqxzvAMj9RI9TsTg=; b=mPxrQHsNK1EC+/YWEpt1dyLC7Wk2ni4om0mWkJfCN0DBPgKYSl6YoJ50y9d2rb2W6g zvdQaIuLm1URTYwFSNdyILrArHA4WAQTN2cees+hJ4ud/ThJwISdOge6AVLvjaOtoXTO B/Ob3v9y9X5VwC9JbNZKrfIeUOGajSB0+aplc=
2012/1/17 Christoph Hertzberg <chtz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> Notice that the present MPL2 relicensing proposal would not exclude,
>> if accepted, a future relicensing when the time comes. [...]
> As long as all authors agree you can re-license as often as you want, can't
> you? Or are there any licenses that would explicitly prohibit re-licensing?
Yes, you can always relicense if all authors agree. That's all I
meant. I don't know of any license that prohibits future relicensing;
I don't know whether writing such a license would be possible.
>> *** OK, so the LGPL isn't great. What are the other licenses we can
>> choose from? ***
>> One obvious answer is "BSD/MIT" but it is clear from private
>> conversations that there is opposition to that from a very significant
>> part of the project members. So while I can't rule out the possibility
>> that we'd some day relicense to such liberal licenses, this can't
>> happen in the near/foreseeable future. We need a better license than
>> the LGPL, sooner.
> Mostly out of curiosity: What are the current concerns against BSD/MIT?
I'll let others state their own concerns :-)
If they don't, let's just say that copyleft-vs-liberal is a quite old
contentious debate and it's not surprising that we don't have
consensus on it.
>> *** How is the MPL2 better? ***
>> 1. The MPL2 is 2.8x shorter than the LGPL (including GPL, of which it
>> is an addendum), see above table.
>> 2. The MPL2 is much better written than any other copyleft-ish license
>> I've seen. See for example these definitions from the MPL2:
>> 1.6. “Executable Form”
>> means any form of the work other than Source Code Form.
>> 1.13. “Source Code Form”
>> means the form of the work preferred for making modifications.
> Sorry, but that still confuses me:
> Wouldn't that mean a tar.gz version of the source is an "Executable Form"?
I think that archiving files as .tar.gz or .zip or whatever, is more
like a filessytem abstraction layer.