On Apr 12, 11:18 am, Pierre Joye <[email protected]> wrote:
> hi,
>
> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Bill Hart <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 9 April 2010 13:23, Marc <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Hello,
>
> >> I am not sure I understand what is going on with MPIR. When the fork
> >> happened, 2 of the main stated goals where:
> >> 1) LGPL2 (required for sage+microsoft)
> >> --> MPIR is now LGPL3+ only
>
> > Correct. Will this create any issues for you?
>
> What are the appealing reasons for this move given one of the initial
> arguments for mpir (gmp license changes)?
In my view the main reasons for doing this are:
(a) many developers of cutting edge multiple precision
algorithms have decided to publish code with a v3+
license
(b) the majority of MPIR users want 'drop in'
compatibility with GMP, which has an LGPL
v3+ license.
To meet these needs while keeping a v2+ license would require
a massive ongoing development effort to re-implement v3+ code
with a v2+ license.
Since there is no relaistic prospect of such development effort
being found, we either have to move to an LGPL v3+ license or
stay with v2+ and accept that MPIR will not be GMP compatible
and will not have the cutting edge performance offerred by v3+
developers.
> Readinghttp://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html, I really wonder if this
> is a good move. I don't feel comfortable to add the GPL license to the
> PHP distribution (see the section 3b, 4b and 4c) as the PHP license is
> not compatible with the GPL. Things can get worst as we are testing
> mpir to be used with php engine for large integers related operations.
It's not ideal - I would call this license change 'the least worst
option'.
In short, continuing to offer a state of the art LGPL v2+ licensed
multiple precision library will require a large increase in the
MPIR developer community.
> I also have concerns about the legal aspects of the lgpl v3. I know
> that the v2 can be used safely but I've a bad feeling about the v3.
> Does anyone have more in depth details about the actual changes
> between the two?
This seems to be a difficult issue with lawyers in different
organisations taking different views.
I know of companies who intend to use LGPL v3+ licensed code in
commercial software products without the latter becoming subject
to GPL licensing. But I also know of companies who think this is
not possible.
Brian
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"mpir-devel" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/mpir-devel?hl=en.
