1 |
On Saturday 12 May 2007 15:22:15 Carsten Lohrke wrote: |
2 |
> On Samstag, 12. Mai 2007, Harald van Dijk wrote: |
3 |
> > Do you need to accept the unmodified GPL-2 for software licensed under |
4 |
> > the GPL-2 plus exception? No? Then GPL-2 does not belong in LICENSE, |
5 |
> > unless in a || group. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> Of course you accept the GPL plus the added exception. Just because an |
8 |
> exception exists, it does not become a completely different license. |
9 |
> |
10 |
This is a big part of the reason I was unsure. In this case it is the GPL |
11 |
licence with the exception to extend your ability to include it in other |
12 |
work. Talking to the author he has done this because the library is a pure |
13 |
template library and so linking exception makes no sense - there is nothing |
14 |
to link to. |
15 |
|
16 |
I suspected that GPL-2 would probably be fine. This is far from an isolated |
17 |
case. Benoit (the author of Eigen) and Diego have pointed out to me that |
18 |
libstdc++ contains similarly licenced template code for the same reasons - |
19 |
the LGPL and the GPL with linking exception are meaningless in this case. |
20 |
|
21 |
Personally I would just like to get Eigen included, but didn't want to |
22 |
unnecessarily clutter our licences directory further. If anything it would be |
23 |
nice to come up with a more generic solution than adding this particular |
24 |
license with exception. The exception serves to make this license more |
25 |
permissive - i.e. it can be compiled into other code much as LGPL allows |
26 |
libraries to be linked to. |
27 |
|
28 |
I guess I could add it and we could fix the licence later if there is no clear |
29 |
consensus (or policy already in place). |
30 |
|
31 |
Thanks, |
32 |
|
33 |
Marcus |