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

[ Thread Index | Date Index | More Archives ]

Perhaps this was already done, but since the minpack license says that the University of Chicago owns the copyright, why not contact them for clarification?  The Office of Technology and Intellectual Property ( is there for just this kind of thing.  

Michael Braun 
Associate Professor of Marketing
MIT Sloan School of Management

On Jul 13, 2012, at 12:26 PM, Benoit Jacob 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?


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

It is very likely that the minpack license is acceptable for MPL, but I think
it is not compatible with GPL.

Cyrille Berger Skott

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Mail converted by MHonArc 2.6.19+