Re: [eigen] moving forward with MPL2

[ Thread Index | Date Index | More Archives ]


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!


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

Mail converted by MHonArc 2.6.19+