Re: [eigen] Relicensing Eigen

[Keir Mierle <mierle@xxxxxxxxx>]

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> wrote:
> 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.

Keir

 

> Thanks,
> Benoit
>
>>
>> There are only two cases i'm aware of in which MPLv2 is GPL incompatible.
>> 1. The author of the code has attached a notice stating the code is
>> "incompatible with secondary licenses", under section 1.5 (using the
>> notice in Exhibit B, as per section 10.4)
>>
>> 2. The original code is MPL 1.1, you use section 6.2 of the MPL 1.1 to
>> use the code under the terms of "any subsequent version of this
>> license", and the original code was not dual licensed to make it GPL
>> compatible.  This is also covered by section 1.5.
>>
>> So without doing anything, unless you fall into situation 2, or have
>> code that falls into situation 1, MPLv2 is a GPL compatible license,
>> because it allow distribution under the terms of a Secondary license
>> (defined in section 1.12), per section 3.3
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Keir Mierle <mierle@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> +dannyb
>>>
>>> Dan kindly offered to comment on this issue.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Anyone wanting to help speed up this process, here is how you can help:
>>>>
>>>> Read the MPL2 text carefully and report here on exactly what is the
>>>> status of GPL compatibility, report if we need to do anything
>>>> non-default to enable GPL compatibility, and point to precise
>>>> sentences in the MPL2 text.
>>>>
>>>> Resources:
>>>> the MPL2: http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/
>>>> the FAQ: http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/FAQ.html
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>>
>>>> Benoit
>>>>
>>>> 2012/6/28 Marcus D. Hanwell <marcus.hanwell@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>>> > On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Rhys Ulerich <rhys.ulerich@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >>> OSS-knowledgeable lawyer
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Those are like doctors.  Best to get a second opinion.  Maybe a third
>>>> >> and fourth.  :)
>>>> >>
>>>> > We have sought a few ourselves, and it is has been one of our main
>>>> > issues in using this. I don't know the exact time frame, but Benoit
>>>> > just recently posted an update on this.
>>>> >
>>>> > Virtually everything I do is released BSD, and in the business world
>>>> > the sheer size and complexity of the GPL licenses can be a real
>>>> > impediment to using libraries. It is great to see Eigen moving to a
>>>> > simpler license.
>>>> >
>>>> > Hopefully Benoit (or others) will be around with more details soon.
>>>> >
>>>> > Marcus
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>