Re: [eigen] MPL2 relicensing: tracking 3rd-party code

[Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>]

So, I should really put back the MINPACK code in EIGEN_MPL2_ONLY. Will do ASAP.

Benoit

2012/7/13 Daniel Berlin <dannyb@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> There is no advertising clause, only an attribution clause.
> It is only a slight variant on the attribution clause already in the
> BSD license.
>
> The normal bsd license says "Redistributions in binary form must
> reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the
> following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials
> provided with the distribution."
>
> The variant in the minpack software doesn't require the same text as
> part of attribution, it requires a slightly different text.
> It also explicitly *allows* the attribution to be in a software
> display, where this is only implied by
>
> While the MPL2 does not require attribution in the same way as either,
> it would be hard to say BSD (either normal or the minpack variant) is
> legally more restrictive than the MPL2.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> + CC Danny, I am not competent to decide on that.
>>
>> Anyway, I (actually, inadvertently) put the MINPACK code out of
>> EIGEN_MPL2_ONLY so the current behavior is what you want!
>>
>> Benoit
>>
>> 2012/7/13 Marcus D. Hanwell <marcus.hanwell@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>> It wouldn't be more permissive if there were advertising clauses I
>>> should be aware of though is it? My interpretation would be that
>>> anything that places additional conditions not in MPL2 should not be
>>> in that set, I want to know that when I use code from there that the
>>> most restrictive license is MPL2. If this has additional advertising
>>> clauses, then I would want to know and accept that separately ideally.
>>>
>>> This is why we are so careful not to accept stuff more restrictive
>>> than BSD into many of our projects, our users expect BSD to be the
>>> most restrictive license they must adhere too.
>>>
>>> Perhaps I am misunderstanding the point of the flag though?
>>>
>>> Marcus
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> (Readding the list in CC)
>>>>
>>>> EIGEN_MPL2_ONLY is going to be "at worst MPL2". It's going to still
>>>> allow code under more permissive licenses.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe the name EIGEN_MPL2_ONLY is not good, then. Any suggestion?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the clarification on the GPL!
>>>>
>>>> Benoit
>>>>
>>>> 2012/7/13 Daniel Berlin <dannyb@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>>>>> (I haven't been following mailing list discussion for a week or so)
>>>>> Does EIGEN_MPL2_ONLY include stuff more permissive than MPL2 (IE is it
>>>>> really "EIGEN_AT_WORST_MPL2", or
>>>>> "EIGEN_REALLY_ONLY_THE_STUFF_THAT_IS_MPL2" :P)
>>>>>
>>>>> If the former, it's fine.
>>>>> GPLv3 explicitly allows the additional terms of what this license is
>>>>> doing, ("b) Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal
>>>>> notices or author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate
>>>>> Legal Notices displayed by works containing it; or").   GPLv2 is
>>>>> silent on the matter, but as I said, it's likely compatible.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the latter, it's not really yours to convert to MPL2 :P.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> Thanks Daniel.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, based on this, do you think that the MINPACK code should be left
>>>>>> out of the EIGEN_MPL2_ONLY set? Or is it OK to ship MINPACK code in
>>>>>> the MPL2-licensed Eigen?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Benoit
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2012/7/13 Daniel Berlin <dannyb@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>>>>>>> So, #3 is not the advertising clause, the advertising clause was "3.
>>>>>>> All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
>>>>>>>    must display the following acknowledgement:
>>>>>>>      This product includes software developed by the University of
>>>>>>>      California, Berkeley and its contributors.
>>>>>>> "
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, the clause cited is a little more complicated.
>>>>>>> The GPL *requires* interactive displays to show acknowledgements and
>>>>>>> appropriate legal notices, and the cited clause says
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software
>>>>>>> itself, if and wherever such third-party acknowledgments
>>>>>>> normally appear."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, at a glance (and this is not a final answer), i'd say they are
>>>>>>> compatible, because there is no situation in which further
>>>>>>> restrictions are placed on you beyond the GPL's requirements around
>>>>>>> attribution anyway.
>>>>>>> (IE you can always be validly complying with both licenses at once).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ok, thanks for the insight.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So do we need to have both a EIGEN_MPL2_ONLY and a EIGEN_GPL_COMPATIBLE_ONLY?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +CC Daniel
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Benoit
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2012/7/13 Cyrille Berger Skott <cberger@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>>>>>>>> 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-
>>>>>>>>> list.html#OriginalBSD.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is very likely that the minpack license is acceptable for MPL, but I think
>>>>>>>>> it is not compatible with GPL.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Cyrille Berger Skott
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>