|
Questions about (L)GPL compatibility
|
| |
Hi,
First of all, the Eigen C++ library is officially considering relicensing to MPL2:
[link]
This library is currently dual-licensed LGPL3+ / GPL2+.
I said that we should switch to MPL2 only instead of tri-licensing, as my understanding was that multi-licensing exposed us to GPL-only back-contributions unusable by us, and I thought that the MPL2 was compatible enough with the LGPL and GPL.... more »
|
|
|
"Larger Work," one last time [was Re: MPL submitted to Open Source Initiative]
|
| |
----- Original Message -----
...
Even with the new phrasing, it still seems possible to me (non-lawyer, non-native-English-speaker) to interprete 1.7 as excluding static linking.
Could please you add an entry about this to the MPL FAQ? Some real users indicated that just a FAQ entry clarifying the intent of the license, would already help.... more »
|
|
|
MPL submitted to Open Source Initiative
|
| |
----- Original Message -----
...
Ping! Still waiting for an answer to this question.
Gervase's answer was a useful clarification of the intention of this section, but I would like the text of the license itself to be clarified, or an explanation of why this isn't needed (of why the ambiguity I thought I found, doesn't exist).... more »
|
|
|
MPL submitted to Open Source Initiative
|
| |
FYI for all of you who have contributed here: yesterday I submitted an
"RC 3" (involving very minor changes from RC2) to the Open Source
Initiative for their approval. If you're interested, you can track the
discussion via the license-review mailing list archives:
[link]... more »
|
|
|
GPL compatibility [was Re: last call for MPL comments]
|
| |
...
Thanks for the kind words on this tricky issue.
We have been working with FSF throughout the process, so we are
hopeful that FSF will indicate that the license is Free Software and
GPL-compatible shortly after release.
Luis
|
|
|
last call for MPL comments
|
| |
This is the last call for MPL comments; we expect to finalize in the
next few days. Someone added a dozen or so comments this weekend to
the comment text this weekend; two of those comments will lead to
minor changes in the last version of the license, as will Benoit's
earlier questions on this list, so this is not a "fake" call- your... more »
|
|
|
Question about section 1.7 "Larger Work"
|
| |
Hi,
This section:
1.7. "Larger Work"
means a work that combines Covered Software with code in a separate
file or files not governed by the terms of this License.
Seems unclear to me.
First question: how to parse it grammatically?
Possibility #1:
means a work that combines Covered Software with code in a separate... more »
|
|
|
