| 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 12:29:05 -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=G8xI7sxiLU5xI3on1LapP51KeDrYeS9A1JRn+NvMk64=; b=oDP2ZVaRiehsY1hV+9iiWe9r+fe+k1iJjv8OP0L+VBKTcC2FftYa6rrGXfN2WeufAg h/e6GdHxElnJk4v/bPQCvn1d2+1IGYEBKs9E4xhysTdp2jnMnQ+Y+7WI5aikLajL8Mp/ rJDKteZ7/5t10+GOjFhRxrfAOEAZ7QitUy7tn0pFYwncnSgZ8NEDY4PQ2tKulWXFoWf9 g27GfbJfBw1tJxOfNdmR9yeChL9ockRZ0dgiT04Zff5XZt2ESit7Ecv4GHnOaqFefJhM VLqCcETWLCtxbTUrMM2ylnzjSNkQu3FcKU9uKPGCGsd+u6GJrY63jWLKAHpPfnIsOuMq 3b9Q==
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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>