|Re: [eigen] Relicensing Eigen|
[ Thread Index |
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen Archives
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Keir Mierle <mierle@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Daniel Berlin <dannyb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > 2012/6/28 Daniel Berlin <dannyb@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>> >> I'm also happy to put you in touch with Luis Villa, who was
>> >> responsible for much of the MPLv2 process
>> > Actually... I have been in touch with the MPL2 team at Mozilla (I work
>> > at Mozilla but not on legal stuff).
>> Sorry, wasn't aware ;)
>> > But since the MPL2 FAQ already
>> > says that the MPL2 is GPL-compatible, it's hard for me to phrase a
>> > precise question. My real issue has been that the MPL2 FAQ isn't easy
>> > enough to grasp for a non-lawyer on this particular point.
>> Honestly, no licenses are.
>> License compatibility is a difficult thing, even for experienced open
>> source lawyers.
>> > Now that I
>> > understand the mechanics at hand, I understand that it's hard to
>> > explain in a simpler way, as the mechanism is actually non-trivial.
>> > (The way in which the licensing of "Larger Works" subtly differs from
>> > plain dual-licensing, as explained in the FAQ).
>> FWIW, this exact conversation you are all having right now is why
>> Google has generally taken a hard stance on approving more OSI
>> licenses. It's not that we think particular license are good or bad,
>> it's than when you combine code from 30 licenses, which is more and
>> more common these days, figuring out the licensing results are a
>> complete and utter mess.
> Ultimately, this is part of what drove me to pick BSD/MIT for all my
> personal projects. Less hassle, more coding, more users.
This is where I have headed too, and I now work at a company with that
same stance (mainly BSD with one or two Apachev2 licensed projects).
The science and coding is hard enough without having to worry about
license compatibility/compliance ;-)