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

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

(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
>>>>>
>>>>>