Re: [eigen] moving forward with MPL2

["Marcus D. Hanwell" <marcus.hanwell@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I am certainly very pleased to see this moving forward. After we
looked at MPL2 it is clearly a much easier license for us to adopt in
our BSD projects, with less concern about any adverse extra
restrictions on our own projects licensing.

Thanks for working on this Benoit, I appreciate the great work you
have all done in Eigen and it will be great to have an easier time
adopting Eigen in more projects!

Marcus

On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I never fully understood this part, that's what I have to carry out now.
>
> Benoit
>
> 2012/6/16 Gael Guennebaud <gael.guennebaud@xxxxxxxxx>:
>> oh right, now I remember this requires an additional note. sorry for the noise.
>>
>>
>> gael
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Gael Guennebaud
>> <gael.guennebaud@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> oh, I thought the MPL2 was made to be GPL compatible by design. So
>>> some subtleties showed up?
>>>
>>> gael
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 6:43 AM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> Alright then, I just have to take the time to fully understand the
>>>> MPL2 GPL compatibility story so I can explain it here. Will do ASAP.
>>>>
>>>> Benoit
>>>>
>>>> 2012/6/13 Gael Guennebaud <gael.guennebaud@xxxxxxxxx>:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't remember there were strong concerns about MPL2-only. If a
>>>>> project like Mozilla is moving all its code to MPL2-only, I think it
>>>>> should be ok for us to do the same. I'm afraid a tri-licensing will
>>>>> significantly affect the main goal of the MPL2: simplicity!
>>>>>
>>>>> gael
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi List,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can't believe it's been 6 months already!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyway, the MPL2 relicensing effort has stalled out. I gather that the
>>>>>> main hesitations about it were:
>>>>>>  1. MPL2 is a new untested license
>>>>>>  2. status of GPL/LGPL compatibility not fully obvious from the license or FAQ
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regarding 1. notice that since then, Mozilla has effectively
>>>>>> relicensed most of its code to MPL2, and all new code should be MPL2,
>>>>>> so there is in fact quite a bit of MPL2 code around now. But still,
>>>>>> not nearly as much as established licenses, of course.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In my original proposal, I said that we should relicense to MPL2-only
>>>>>> instead of tri-licensing, as tri-licensing had proved a weak choice
>>>>>> for Mozilla, as it opened the door to GPL-only back-contributions that
>>>>>> we wouldn't be able to incorporate in the original product.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, 6 months after, it seems like a good time to ease corners a
>>>>>> bit to make at least something happen, as the statu quo (LGPL/GPL
>>>>>> only) is really not great.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So how about this: relicense to MPL2 + existing LGPL3+/GPL2+ licenses
>>>>>> (i.e. tri-license)? At least this doesn't have a lot of possible
>>>>>> disadvantages compared to the current situation. The above-mentioned
>>>>>> loophope already exists with our present dual-license.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Keeping the existing LGPL+GPL licenses should remove the above
>>>>>> concerns 1. and 2.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Objections?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Benoit
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>
>