| 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: Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 00:43:33 -0400
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=rDqBR+FKgd2PcAggrbShpJedTA4GaQrpJ55qt6nNcgM=; b=sDxs4B63hfEeI/DBiUULbBiOdG+6gWWf3/I4OlAMQZjOVXZtaO7Rc2ZxzTY58o5O9I Ap7KxVtv09rRLmJ0THfpr/mJNMzkXOLwJMWAjK8ne8qEkD2me9HKiZ43C3UFGZpp9LlK 9v7ihtxqvADOByqc3zMRFTw7ZqcdQHp04MudH0/u8d3C73qtNq7byERb5lhfAHODSRpB YSjj7lXDCUn5m7VK84w7sCGjxquQv+Rclp18x+kHZR+P4FzFDFOIygXpasaQ3ojmTBxa /6JGv1smhKDoxzq+kjlkRFACfY+fwgFE/CklfI9QvBDdhtDRy/b4uwaieQoH7TpD/Dvg IT+Q==
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
>>
>>
>
>