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

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

+ 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>
>>
>
>