| Re: [eigen] moving forward with MPL2 |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen Archives
]
- To: eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [eigen] moving forward with MPL2
- From: Gael Guennebaud <gael.guennebaud@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 12:01:49 +0200
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZKGiBcDBVZswQT7fdzrbuDSWiUw5sQvVLWmCPIcIjsE=; b=ZBO4M1m9bMDgFaddVZfckVr9ivbUAYz8pnYSnRZOf50XJ/30eZCFgbMuO/LM5+1sTW w3Pr2QsVQ84/BZgFKHARllZ//JYvfCIH4c+8YI89r6kURAzzY8mDtj7mBAf5VdGUdgpT y3ydBVQJ5MXD42e7YxdjexnmllqZ76A3BTlTR4xjGNMOepQIPPppOp7gY1pgWtUFx2y9 FlRa+7oWq9/p1ND5ld5qYUAUEtGRuzIlicLchLLkbN5Kw52NpAyMuwtgAYUT/ZFltbx1 GAIqV0oF4qfcqX8yUMZh/egJFwgp9D1/AMfZ/BYHJjez1yR8Xgho0H6B+dXp97zyG+wC 541w==
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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>