|Re: [eigen] Re: Contributor approval for the MPL2 relicensing (YOUR ACTION NEEDED)|
[ Thread Index |
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen Archives
- To: eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [eigen] Re: Contributor approval for the MPL2 relicensing (YOUR ACTION NEEDED)
- From: Daniel Berlin <dannyb@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 21:08:20 -0400
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-system-of-record; bh=iOrn2Aof7R+uaPUwoKgTIgaPjqfNnryRKBhayaXIeNw=; b=XRMZmcJw/PZTHMzHNkxKG776neDcCvOCK86nDD52aqRJkpiwX9AvRBpCAaaOHpCk8m nqL2UylcdXLkjgVcdizZlns3eoVhMB7d1/6XHCt2raBFAfohfJzEpqydJf+KljvIhUIQ NU8NJmGOUUPfGkCVp1dExhr2k1bJnQP9jkWG0Yzr42pD+Odpz8GqEAJ+M+lFUFjkaI4Y +sEjfw3h2rdFK1d+E4vy7YtAzkHWY+8k/7B8+H8sUDnTC889KNXqlL/bARnBVGgM44TX cGVEDLI56vo9D1biqRmncrlUJWLt7Qwl8BBNhMvSNdL5X7tOysHHDr7vjIju3E/iqREz 2GqQ==
I have no dog in this fight, but i can tell you non-uniformity can
cause issues, even when well intentioned.
If CMake code is BSD, and the rest is MPL2, then any time you want to
copy one way or the other, now you have to ask the original authors.
This means if you want to add some small test to cmake that is derived
from the MPL2 code, or something, you end up getting to ask people.
As your project goes on, this can be the pain. LLVM is actually
starting to hit this for other reasons (The compiler runtime is MIT
licensed so that it has no attribution requirements, but the rest of
LLVM is BSD licensed. They can't copy code between the two, or use
LLVM code in the compiler runtime, without getting permission from
random patch authors)
I would strongly advise you to pick a single license and be happy with
it. If it was me, i'd pick BSD. It's simple, it gets you attribution,
users like it. If your leanings are more copyleft-like, go with
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In fact, CMake code should have a license too, especially as we have
> highly nontrivial CMake code.
> What shall we choose?
> - MPL2 for uniformity within our codebase?
> - or BSD/MIT like KDE does for CMake code for maximum ease of sharing/reusing?
> 2012/6/28 Marcus D. Hanwell <marcus.hanwell@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> Yes, I agree to have all the code that I contributed to Eigen
>> relicensed to the MPL2 license.
>> I believe all I ever contributed was a little CMake code, so perhaps
>> not so important in this context ;-)
>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Let me open the dance:
>>> Yes, I agree to have all the code that I contributed to Eigen
>>> relicensed to the MPL2 license.
>>> 2012/6/28 Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>:
>>>> Hi List,
>>>> We want to relicense to the MPL2 license very soon. The explicit
>>>> written agreement of every contributor is needed. It is worth replying
>>>> to this thread even if you've contributed only 1 byte to Eigen. We
>>>> probably won't get all the minor contributors and we'll use common
>>>> sense there, but it is worth chasing everyone we can.
>>>> Before going on, here are two links that you should check out before proceeding:
>>>> - the MPL2 license:
>>>> - the MPL2 FAQ:
>>>> Notice that this is about relicensing Eigen to the MPL2 *only*. The
>>>> current LGPL/GPL licensing options will be removed. Make sure that you
>>>> understand this. We are currently investigating the status of MPL-GPL
>>>> compatibility, as that is of course a requirement for this relicensing
>>>> to be acceptable. You can help with that --- see the other thread. We
>>>> will not actually relicense until we are certain that this will be
>>>> acceptable by users who rely on LGPL/GPL compatibility.
>>>> So, please reply to this email with either one of the following two sentences:
>>>> Yes, I agree to have all the code that I contributed to Eigen
>>>> relicensed to the MPL2 license.
>>>> No, I do not agree.
>>>> Anything else than the above "Yes" sentence will mean "No".