| Re: [eigen] MPL2 relicensing: tracking 3rd-party code |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen Archives
]
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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>
>