| 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: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 19:16:36 +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=h5wixBmZqZv8Td6B2DLfO1t3DQZpu3zP+Tw/iNgTP5k=; b=ZNu7qLM2RL62wkU+Z65cnGOMEqaSjOrKE9AKanE0EuYs5cQTJsxBW0wMKOt3DPb/Wm C3GJmUyAPqcLFcBlM0s9jOukTUDb92nNHBxKxy6/2DCwUyoFgTqhHLjjEPjYaU5kq0Ug hNjqM9uOB4Ehy+g8UgmobCGqtgJkgaoCzgkzNQlUdPDvF47l9j9BHA3ZFEcxq7I4gJ5r ce1KSPOJbcGedwupQXKW6nkjD3H/2znl/j66pSjDRmBO7ql7lQPPovOQw+Abb583oEBm JDUcgTyVgT0d5L97nCJAUim6O8vPqqVoUiLIRxCJh79hYDZKXUbBF70exCzUFsdKIFtm DbWw==
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
>
>