Re: [eigen] Using Eigen in commercial software

[Clifford Yapp <cliffyapp@xxxxxxxxx>]

Benoit,

Do I have it right that we down to the Intel contribution for
relicensing approvals?

Cheers,
CY

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 2012/9/28 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.
>
> That was erroneous metadata. The author of this patch was another
> David, but the person pushing this patch got confused by information
> on that bug (http://eigen.tuxfamily.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=276). I've
> now contacted this David.
>
> Benoit
>
>>
>> [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
>>>>> >>> >> >>
>>>>> >>> >> >>
>>>>> >>> >> >
>>>>> >>> >>
>>>>> >>> >>
>>>>> >>> >
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>