Re: [eigen] Re: Contributor approval for the MPL2 relicensing (YOUR ACTION NEEDED)

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

Ouch. Strong arguments on both sides (Daniel's and yours).

However, while Eigen has been using CMake since the 0.x days, that is
for 6 years, we have never had an occasion to upstream anything. And
if we did, realistically there are only 2 people AFAIK who contributed
really nontrivial CMake code, Gael and me (no offense intented to
anyone I might have forgotten), so getting approval to relicense would
be easy.

On the other hand, Daniel's argument seems more concrete to me: it is
very conceivable that we could want to take some existing MPL2 C++
code and add it as an inline test (as a string) in a CMake file. For
example if existing code turns out to be a good testcase.

So, I'm leaning on Daniel's side here -- use MPL2 for everything
including CMake code.

Benoit

2012/6/28 Marcus D. Hanwell <marcus.hanwell@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
> If you ever want me or others to upstream it, then it must be BSD. I
> think there is a clear line here - CMake is certainly not C++ and
> would never be copied into Eigen code (or vice-versa). One of the
> reasons that I think KDE used BSD in CMake code is so that we are able
> to upstream improvements easily.
>
> You know I lean towards BSD in general for its simplicity, but my
> CMake contributions to Eigen have been fairly minimal thus far too.
>
> Marcus
>
> 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?
>>
>> Benoit
>>
>> 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 ;-)
>>>
>>> Marcus
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Benoit
>>>>
>>>> 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:
>>>>>     http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/
>>>>>  - the MPL2 FAQ:
>>>>>     http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/FAQ.html
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> or
>>>>>
>>>>>  No, I do not agree.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anything else than the above "Yes" sentence will mean "No".
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Benoit
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>