Re: [eigen] moving forward with MPL2

[Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Marcus, this definitely adds to the motivation to do the
remaining MPL2-related work :-)

2012/6/22 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@xxxxxxxxxx> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>