|Re: [eigen] MPL2 relicensing: tracking 3rd-party code|
[ Thread Index |
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen Archives
- To: eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [eigen] MPL2 relicensing: tracking 3rd-party code
- From: Bastien ROUCARIES <roucaries.bastien@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 17:37:33 +0200
- 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 :content-type; bh=f0g/iG4z02nygoaZIQtdzxSmHzzb8QqjCMR8/1YWdew=; b=WlRF0QA2dNC80AbeWWPVO2qefLL6jYAq5jk5Rcuqhd0h4fjTrL/WKufXRG9+o+a0ja CHjis3qZZNy1eO4EV4OsaDh84adPNsN6FUKKj6vNWLdxj8uuqR4ke5JApJOcGH4sa42k BtpqYTKdKiy++E7JjA2YGP7hwt1Gx5R9WAXewnspoaVTNsdPsrFEseNJf3Y0gzRfcOwC mjIw3tuZnaVt9ITBMgTqPuMKNFEyyyPmUp9jHBFh6WLCV7avm09aHGaRa8KB0dwkrc7u fg7Dm4MBK4ewSmlw1Dmck2pDwrb0vdv+i5byx58N77UyjrS1kjFkaFv8H+J6kdd0HQb/ rokA==
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Cyrille Berger Skott
> On Saturday 30 Jun 2012, Benoit Jacob wrote:
> > Following links, I arrived at this license file for MINPACK:
> > http://www.netlib.org/minpack/disclaimer
> > Can anyone tell if this license is acceptable? From a quick glance, it
> > looks like a BSD-ish license.
> The problem is clause 3, it looks very much like an advertisement clause which
> are not GPL-compatible, see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-
No it is not a advertisment clause, and it is compatible with gpl
clause 2 say approximatively the same:
- print that the software is copyrighted under gpl2 if interactive
> It is very likely that the minpack license is acceptable for MPL, but I think
> it is not compatible with GPL.
No it is compatible and documentation could be only a LICENSE FILE.
Clause 4 and 5 are only governement limatation of warranty
> Cyrille Berger Skott