|Re: [eigen] Relicensing Eigen|
[ Thread Index |
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen Archives
- To: eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [eigen] Relicensing Eigen
- From: Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 16:23:58 -0400
- Cc: Keir Mierle <mierle@xxxxxxxxx>
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=jjGjawhX89Cqjhiykaxr/KomiXG1JntFkASUmy14+jc=; b=GTAn3JlNTC1K/USQJ0VYwwp7yd3Kns/FXlEgLkwi/uBTpL6CTAalM8DQ0SdNPdo2YR 2LMDT22o3lVsaBLWcRy2BPtTWrILnJlotcG2LpxUH8rG07AOvKxC9XWNDbY31RtR5X+V MtBkzyOqFxIcUrvpw6Dhfev9nNGzyzqTK+R2brqV3wUBIJafzzZkBVkW6Hj+crW/13+c f2rfDoa2PzL94jTDQkJY83ly8PnjmbCbKTEU4pe4uDjln9oyVLZg2cwhANQskHhc9yCd hN2kEzhvVyCE0+mnjFkphKkyDYGCucRC6p3H+WuQ1Dukfx8dgBP1ysvnIHOajcJt41o6 8jkw==
Thanks Daniel. This is a tremendously useful reply and confirms what I
thought. I was also wondering if there were any issues on the GPL side
of things, but from your reply I assume that that is not the case.
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
> 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:
>> Dan kindly offered to comment on this issue.
>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> 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.
>>> the MPL2: http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/
>>> the FAQ: http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/FAQ.html
>>> 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