Re: [eigen] Using Eigen in commercial software

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

Here's the current status:

[5731dbe0ec5f] 2011-12-09  Igor Krivenko  <Igor Krivenko>

I am just contacting him now thanks to Bastien's information.

[a1f843f013c9] 2011-12-05  karturov  <karturov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

He replied saying he's waiting for a confirmation from his legal department.

[3233ef18be4a] 2011-05-23  David H. Bailey  <David H. Bailey>
[efe1a0250288] 2011-05-23  David H. Bailey  <David H. Bailey>

I am just contacting him now thanks to Bill's and Bastien's information.

[f86a974f6111] 2011-02-03  Jason Newton  <nevion@xxxxxxxxx>

Has already sent his agreement on this list.

[0e182249fb56] 2011-12-10  Andy Somerville  <andy.somerville@xxxxxxxxx>

Has already sent his agreement on this list.

[13f72ac8283d] 2011-11-17  Kibeom Kim  <kkimlabs@xxxxxxxxx>

Has already sent his agreement on this list.

[6e0ee90bd35c] 2011-01-07  Romain Bossart  <romain.bossart@xxxxxxx>

Has sent his agreement privately to me and Gael. We are asking him to
please re-send it to this list.

Benoit

2012/9/26 Clifford Yapp <cliffyapp@xxxxxxxxx>:
> Benoit -
>
> How do we stand on the relicensing responses?  Is there anyone we need
> to try to locate more current contact information for?
>
> Cheers,
> CY
>
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Bill Greene <w.h.greene@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Based on Bastien's comment, I'm guessing this is the David H. Bailey who
>> contributed the Eigen change.
>>
>> http://crd-legacy.lbl.gov/~dhbailey/
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 7:44 AM, Bastien ROUCARIES
>> <roucaries.bastien@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> Igor is active in other field: Igor Krivenko (igor@xxxxxx)  and david
>>> is well known on SIAM
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 7:48 AM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> wrote:
>>> > I have sent emails to Konstantin, Jason, Andy, Kibeom and Romain. I
>>> > have also opened this list temporarily to non-members to avoid
>>> > rejecting their replies. The downside is we'll temporarily be
>>> > vulnerable to spamming.
>>> >
>>> > Unfortunately, Igor and David didn't provide email addresses. It's
>>> > very important when pushing patches from contributors to ensure that
>>> > their author field has an email address.
>>> >
>>> > Benoit
>>> >
>>> > 2012/9/18 Bill Greene <w.h.greene@xxxxxxxxx>:
>>> >> OK, great! Thanks, Benoit.
>>> >>
>>> >> Bill
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 2:07 AM, Benoit Jacob
>>> >> <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Thanks for this work. I will contact them asap, hopefully this week
>>> >>> but I am at an industrial meeting until Thursday.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Benoit
>>> >>>
>>> >>> 2012/9/16 Bill Greene <w.h.greene@xxxxxxxxx>:
>>> >>> > OK, thanks, Benoit, I understand.
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > Your samples did help me understand how to analyze the changesets.
>>> >>> > From your July 13 email I found 41 changeset authors with 1-2
>>> >>> > changesets
>>> >>> > each that had not agreed to re-licensing. I found a total of 54
>>> >>> > changesets
>>> >>> > for
>>> >>> > these authors. I looked at each of these. As you say, many of them
>>> >>> > are
>>> >>> > trivial, deal with documentation, tests, or Cmake files-- none of
>>> >>> > which
>>> >>> > is
>>> >>> > a concern. I did find 8 changesets that definitely could be
>>> >>> > considered
>>> >>> > non-trivial:
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > [5731dbe0ec5f] 2011-12-09  Igor Krivenko  <Igor Krivenko>
>>> >>> > [a1f843f013c9] 2011-12-05  karturov
>>> >>> > <karturov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> >>> > [3233ef18be4a] 2011-05-23  David H. Bailey  <David H. Bailey>
>>> >>> > [efe1a0250288] 2011-05-23  David H. Bailey  <David H. Bailey>
>>> >>> > [f86a974f6111] 2011-02-03  Jason Newton  <nevion@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> >>> > [0e182249fb56] 2011-12-10  Andy Somerville
>>> >>> > <andy.somerville@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> >>> > [13f72ac8283d] 2011-11-17  Kibeom Kim  <kkimlabs@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> >>> > [6e0ee90bd35c] 2011-01-07  Romain Bossart  <romain.bossart@xxxxxxx>
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > If you agree with my assessment, would you consider contacting these
>>> >>> > authors
>>> >>> > to
>>> >>> > see if they agree?
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > I have to apologize again for this annoyance but I really appreciate
>>> >>> > the
>>> >>> > help.
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > Bill
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Benoit Jacob
>>> >>> > <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> >>> > wrote:
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> 2012/9/15 Bill Greene <w.h.greene@xxxxxxxxx>:
>>> >>> >> > Thanks very much for the quick reply, Benoit.
>>> >>> >> >
>>> >>> >> > Your analysis of the changesets from authors without an email
>>> >>> >> > response
>>> >>> >> > is
>>> >>> >> > very helpful. Was the part you included in your reply part of a
>>> >>> >> > larger
>>> >>> >> > analysis that you have done? If so, is that available in a file I
>>> >>> >> > could
>>> >>> >> > download?
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> No, I just did it to reply to your email. I included the hg command
>>> >>> >> lines in the email, so you can continue iterating over the other
>>> >>> >> contributors if you want. The list of contributors to check is the
>>> >>> >> one
>>> >>> >> given in the same email that you quoted.
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> >
>>> >>> >> > As far as Eigen support for external sparse solvers, that is
>>> >>> >> > something
>>> >>> >> > we
>>> >>> >> > don't
>>> >>> >> > have any immediate plans for but might be nice to use in the
>>> >>> >> > future.
>>> >>> >> > If  Romain Bossart agrees to relicense, that would certainly
>>> >>> >> > help.
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> For context though, even stopping at the contributors who had 3
>>> >>> >> changesets in the tree, most of the replies that I got were of the
>>> >>> >> form "Oh, do you seriously need my agreement for those few small
>>> >>> >> changes I contributed? Sure, I don't care" so I stopped there as
>>> >>> >> this
>>> >>> >> started feeling like diminishing returns. I'll contact Romain if
>>> >>> >> there
>>> >>> >> is a definite need for it.
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> >
>>> >>> >> > Thanks again.
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> You're very welcome,
>>> >>> >> Benoit
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> >
>>> >>> >> > Bill
>>> >>> >> >
>>> >>> >> >
>>> >>> >> > On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Benoit Jacob
>>> >>> >> > <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> >>> >> > wrote:
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >> As said in the email that you quote, we tracked contributor
>>> >>> >> >> agreements
>>> >>> >> >> for the relicensing until we had agreement from everyone who had
>>> >>> >> >> contributed at least 3 changesets.
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >> That same email gives the list of contributors who haven't
>>> >>> >> >> replied
>>> >>> >> >> (nobody replied negatively).
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >> We can use it to check that these changesets are either trivial,
>>> >>> >> >> or
>>> >>> >> >> old enough that the code has been rewritten many times since, or
>>> >>> >> >> simple enough to be rewritten, or non-essential enough to be
>>> >>> >> >> dropped.
>>> >>> >> >> Also note that in most cases, these contributors's 2nd changeset
>>> >>> >> >> is
>>> >>> >> >> the same as the first one, transplanted to a different branch. I
>>> >>> >> >> comment inline below.
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >> bjacob:~/eigen$ hg log -u 'Zach Ploskey' --style=changelog
>>> >>> >> >> 2011-06-17  Zach Ploskey  <zploskey@xxxxxx>
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >>         * doc/C00_QuickStartGuide.dox:
>>> >>> >> >>         Suggest placing Eigen directory in system include path.
>>> >>> >> >>         [7035d240ff92]
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >>         * doc/C09_TutorialSparse.dox:
>>> >>> >> >>         Fixed a few typos and cleaned up some language.
>>> >>> >> >>         [d03f246ce0d7]
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >>   -> that is documentation only.
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >> bjacob:~/eigen$ hg log -u 'williami@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
>>> >>> >> >> --style=changelog
>>> >>> >> >> 2012-06-04  williami  <williami@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >>         * Eigen/Core, Eigen/src/Core/PlainObjectBase.h,
>>> >>> >> >>         Eigen/src/Core/util/Macros.h:
>>> >>> >> >>         Fixed RVCT 3.1 compiler errors. (transplanted from
>>> >>> >> >>         2d727e1e20b40e1017e6c44cbff8faa3aac1c0c5)
>>> >>> >> >>         [8d244d9c6668] <3.0>
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >>         * Eigen/Core, Eigen/src/Core/PlainObjectBase.h,
>>> >>> >> >>         Eigen/src/Core/util/Macros.h:
>>> >>> >> >>         Fixed RVCT 3.1 compiler errors.
>>> >>> >> >>         [2d727e1e20b4]
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >>   -> that is trivial compilation fixes
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >> bjacob:~/eigen$ hg log --style=changelog -u 'Trevor Wennblom'
>>> >>> >> >> 2011-08-30  Trevor Wennblom  <trevor@xxxxxxxx>
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >>         * CMakeLists.txt:
>>> >>> >> >>         resolve pkgconfig destination -
>>> >>> >> >>         http://eigen.tuxfamily.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=338
>>> >>> >> >> (transplanted
>>> >>> >> >> from
>>> >>> >> >>         be73e9686e0e11caa72778a7dd5dd1a8a1742afc)
>>> >>> >> >>         [0b7f92e0e626] <3.0>
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >>         * CMakeLists.txt:
>>> >>> >> >>         resolve pkgconfig destination -
>>> >>> >> >>         http://eigen.tuxfamily.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=338
>>> >>> >> >>         [be73e9686e0e]
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >>    -> that is pkgconfig-only (not Eigen code) fixes
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >> bjacob:~/eigen$ hg log --style=changelog -u 'Sebastian Lipponer'
>>> >>> >> >> 2011-12-09  Sebastian Lipponer  <lipponer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >>         * Eigen/src/Core/Block.h,
>>> >>> >> >> Eigen/src/Core/util/XprHelper.h:
>>> >>> >> >>         Fix MSVC integer overflow warning (transplanted from
>>> >>> >> >>         c4d57918acea37c502ac6f7aa4d836910f1ed4a5)
>>> >>> >> >>         [180613093b9f] <3.0>
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >>         * Eigen/src/Core/Block.h,
>>> >>> >> >> Eigen/src/Core/util/XprHelper.h:
>>> >>> >> >>         Fix MSVC integer overflow warning
>>> >>> >> >>         [c4d57918acea]
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >>   -> this is just a warning fix
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >> bjacob:~/eigen$ hg log --style=changelog -u 'Romain Bossart'
>>> >>> >> >> 2011-01-07  Romain Bossart  <romain.bossart@xxxxxxx>
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >>         * unsupported/Eigen/src/SparseExtra/UmfPackSupport.h:
>>> >>> >> >>         Fix bug 38
>>> >>> >> >>         * address of temporaries were passed to umfpack_zi_*
>>> >>> >> >> functions.
>>> >>> >> >> It
>>> >>> >> >> is
>>> >>> >> >>         ok with g++-4.4 or 4.5, but not with the -std=c++0x in
>>> >>> >> >> both
>>> >>> >> >>         versions. This patch makes it work for c++98 and c++0x
>>> >>> >> >> versions
>>> >>> >> >>         [69d6a720ea83]
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >>   -> this is a nontrivial code change, but it changes only 10
>>> >>> >> >> lines
>>> >>> >> >> so
>>> >>> >> >> would be easy to rewrite if needed.
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >> 2010-10-04  Romain Bossart  <romain.bossart@xxxxxxx>
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >>         *
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >> doc/examples/Tutorial_ReductionsVisitorsBroadcasting_broadcast_1nn.c
>>> >>> >> >>         pp~,
>>> >>> >> >> doc/examples/Tutorial_ReductionsVisitorsBroadcasting_broadcast_
>>> >>> >> >>         simple.cpp~,
>>> >>> >> >> doc/examples/Tutorial_ReductionsVisitorsBroadcasting_re
>>> >>> >> >>         ductions_norm.cpp~,
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >> doc/examples/Tutorial_ReductionsVisitorsBroadcasting_visitors.cpp~,
>>> >>> >> >>         unsupported/Eigen/CholmodSupport,
>>> >>> >> >> unsupported/Eigen/SparseExtra,
>>> >>> >> >>         unsupported/Eigen/SuperLUSupport,
>>> >>> >> >> unsupported/Eigen/UmfPackSupport,
>>> >>> >> >>         unsupported/Eigen/src/SparseExtra/CholmodSupport.h,
>>> >>> >> >>         unsupported/Eigen/src/SparseExtra/SparseLDLT.h,
>>> >>> >> >>         unsupported/Eigen/src/SparseExtra/SparseLLT.h,
>>> >>> >> >>         unsupported/Eigen/src/SparseExtra/SparseLU.h,
>>> >>> >> >>         unsupported/Eigen/src/SparseExtra/UmfPackSupport.h,
>>> >>> >> >>         unsupported/test/sparse_ldlt.cpp,
>>> >>> >> >> unsupported/test/sparse_llt.cpp:
>>> >>> >> >>         Updates to the Sparse unsupported solvers module.
>>> >>> >> >>         * change Sparse* specialization's signatures from <...,
>>> >>> >> >> int
>>> >>> >> >> Backend>
>>> >>> >> >>         to <..., typename Backend>. Update SparseExtra
>>> >>> >> >> accordingly
>>> >>> >> >> to
>>> >>> >> >> use
>>> >>> >> >>         structs instead of the SparseBackend enum.
>>> >>> >> >>         * add SparseLDLT Cholmod specialization
>>> >>> >> >>         * for Cholmod and UmfPack, SparseLU, SparseLLT and
>>> >>> >> >> SparseLDLT
>>> >>> >> >> now
>>> >>> >> >> use
>>> >>> >> >>         ei_solve_retval and have the new solve() method (to be
>>> >>> >> >> closer
>>> >>> >> >> to
>>> >>> >> >> the
>>> >>> >> >>         3.0 API).
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >>         * fix doc
>>> >>> >> >>         [6e0ee90bd35c]
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >>  -> This is a nontrivial larger change, but it's in Sparse
>>> >>> >> >> solvers
>>> >>> >> >> (a
>>> >>> >> >> self-contained part) and it dates back to early 2010 and that
>>> >>> >> >> code
>>> >>> >> >> has
>>> >>> >> >> been largely rewritten since. Gael could comment. If you are
>>> >>> >> >> concerned
>>> >>> >> >> about this, we could try contacting Romain (we haven't tried so
>>> >>> >> >> far,
>>> >>> >> >> as he has only 2 changesets in the tree).
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >> 2007-09-30  Michael Olbrich  <michael.olbrich@xxxxxxx>
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >>         * src/internal/Object.h:
>>> >>> >> >>         Generic loop unrolling with template metaprograms. It
>>> >>> >> >> seems
>>> >>> >> >> to
>>> >>> >> >> be
>>> >>> >> >> as
>>> >>> >> >>         fast as manually unrolling. TODO: decide when to stop
>>> >>> >> >> unrolling
>>> >>> >> >>         (speed vs. code size). maybe only unroll one loop for
>>> >>> >> >> larger
>>> >>> >> >>         matixes.
>>> >>> >> >>         [9af3c97142d1]
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >>   -> this change dates back to 2007, this code has been
>>> >>> >> >> rewritten
>>> >>> >> >> since.
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >>         * src/internal/Minor.h:
>>> >>> >> >>         for dynamic size matrix (Rows|Cols)AtCompileTime is
>>> >>> >> >> always
>>> >>> >> >> EiDynamic
>>> >>> >> >>         and not "(Rows|Cols)AtCompileTime - 1" which would be
>>> >>> >> >> EiDynamic
>>> >>> >> >> -
>>> >>> >> >> 1
>>> >>> >> >>         == -2
>>> >>> >> >>         [453cda54b0a6]
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >>   -> this code (the whole class) has been removed in Eigen 3.
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >> and so on...
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >> Benoit
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >> 2012/9/15 Bill Greene <w.h.greene@xxxxxxxxx>:
>>> >>> >> >> >
>>> >>> >> >> > Dear Eigen Developers,
>>> >>> >> >> >
>>> >>> >> >> > I have been an enthusiastic user of Eigen for the past several
>>> >>> >> >> > years.
>>> >>> >> >> > Many thanks for writing such a wonderful matrix class library!
>>> >>> >> >> >
>>> >>> >> >> > Recently I started work at a commercial software company and
>>> >>> >> >> > would
>>> >>> >> >> > like to use Eigen as part of my commercial development work.
>>> >>> >> >> > It
>>> >>> >> >> > seems
>>> >>> >> >> > clear to me that this type of usage is permitted. But I have
>>> >>> >> >> > to
>>> >>> >> >> > obtain
>>> >>> >> >> > approval from the company's lawyers and they would not give
>>> >>> >> >> > this
>>> >>> >> >> > approval.
>>> >>> >> >> > First off, they will not consider any software licensed under
>>> >>> >> >> > LGPL3.
>>> >>> >> >> > I pointed out that most of the software had recently been
>>> >>> >> >> > re-licensed
>>> >>> >> >> > under
>>> >>> >> >> > MPL and pointed them to the email threads that, to me,
>>> >>> >> >> > indicated a
>>> >>> >> >> > very
>>> >>> >> >> > careful, thorough process followed during re-licensing.
>>> >>> >> >> > According
>>> >>> >> >> > to
>>> >>> >> >> > them,
>>> >>> >> >> > the licensing process was not legally sufficient and their
>>> >>> >> >> > complaints
>>> >>> >> >> > appear to focus on this sentence:
>>> >>> >> >> >
>>> >>> >> >> > "Aside from 3rd-party code, there remain only about 50
>>> >>> >> >> > changesets
>>> >>> >> >> > without re-licensing approval, they all seem to be from
>>> >>> >> >> > contributors
>>> >>> >> >> > who contributed at most 2 changesets to Eigen, and 50
>>> >>> >> >> > changesets
>>> >>> >> >> > is
>>> >>> >> >> > about only 1% of the total."
>>> >>> >> >> >
>>> >>> >> >> > They claim that the potential exists for as many as 50
>>> >>> >> >> > developers
>>> >>> >> >> > to
>>> >>> >> >> > challenge the legality of the re-licensing process.
>>> >>> >> >> >
>>> >>> >> >> > Can anything more be said about these 50 changesets? Is it
>>> >>> >> >> > possible
>>> >>> >> >> > to
>>> >>> >> >> > avoid the code that includes these changes?
>>> >>> >> >> >
>>> >>> >> >> > Sorry to bother you guys with this issue particularly since it
>>> >>> >> >> > seems
>>> >>> >> >> > clear
>>> >>> >> >> > to me that the re-licensing process you followed showed due
>>> >>> >> >> > diligence.
>>> >>> >> >> > But I'll be very disappointed not to be able to use Eigen in
>>> >>> >> >> > my
>>> >>> >> >> > upcoming
>>> >>> >> >> > work and I'm looking for any data I can use to convince the
>>> >>> >> >> > lawyers
>>> >>> >> >> > this
>>> >>> >> >> > should be allowed.
>>> >>> >> >> >
>>> >>> >> >> > Thanks.
>>> >>> >> >> >
>>> >>> >> >> > Bill
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>