|Re: [eigen] MPL2 relicensing: tracking 3rd-party code|
[ Thread Index |
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen Archives
- To: Daniel Berlin <dannyb@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [eigen] MPL2 relicensing: tracking 3rd-party code
- From: Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 12:26:36 -0400
- Cc: eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- 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; bh=wuSrqt/lzYBMXP4aLm46So0Ye9fYIk6kxXZld0zUdu0=; b=bBLkuujP6wi8OacnuhNIi45nebitlka5awAlpeZ8QdzYUMXYSyXMCZvuBNBOYyz4nb 5NK6Y+pvrqeS8Wz5jG5etJDruENdaV+9nZHFZdAzxAfHgpYZiTr4G0SwYRcW0vaqdjEE G9PyLny33H5HFxOEWLe2S/NlWeQq7sejoxHppYN5Wm2ukK0a5UOY03QuWHfiThlQmmzN k//3ucPcWbrojVvWuZKM6Z5JonVgNRsjtQLlMQk/iHkTEDQz2DLG3VbuSRUTRyQqezf/ SYgvL40QZBqvIKhuInZWfEkrGRdpdk2u3rIcrvteOl465KFvx9FQkPdVf6Ikgeh4AN1W h4lQ==
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?
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
>> 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:
>>>> 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-
>>> It is very likely that the minpack license is acceptable for MPL, but I think
>>> it is not compatible with GPL.
>>> Cyrille Berger Skott