Re: [eigen] Relicensing Eigen

[Bob Carpenter <carp@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

We're using Eigen in BSD-licensed code (along
with Boost, which has its own quirky license).

I strongly prefer MPL to LGPL and for us,
BSD is easier than MPL just because it reduces
the number of licenses by 1.

Whatever the truth of the law is and whether
it's knowable or changeable is moot if customers
are averse to licenses ending in "GPL".

- Bob Carpenter
  Columbia Uni, Dept of Statistics



On 6/28/12 3:03 PM, Benoit Jacob wrote:
> Hi Keir,
>
> I've just been slow, and didn't realize how much it mattered for you.
>
> We seem to have consensus now to relicense, but I was hoping to find
> some time to investigate exactly how the MPL-GPL compatibility works.
>
> If this is extremely urgent, one possible approach is to first
> immediately add MPL as an alternate licensing option, and then only
> later once the analysis is done, remove the existing LGPL+GPL options.
>
> Thoughts?
> Benoit
>
> 2012/6/28 Keir Mierle <mierle@xxxxxxxxx>:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > Has there been any progress on moving to MPL 2.0 (or, even better, BSD/MIT)?
> > I am now in the difficult position of not being able to use Eigen, or even
> > my own contributions to Eigen, due to the license. LGPL3 compliance is not
> > as trivial as the Eigen webpage suggests, according to an
> > OSS-knowledgeable lawyer I have talked to about Eigen. Removing an Eigen
> > dependency from my code is not trivial.
> >
> > If the relicense can't happen, and on a reasonably short timeframe (a month
> > or two) I may have to consider starting an API compatible re-implementation
> > of the subset of Eigen we need. Obviously, this is the last thing I want to
> > do.
> >
> > Keir