License

[Justin Carpentier]

The original mention of the license of the code is largely missing.
The code is a copy paster or former code by Andrea.

This should be fixed before any formal release I would say.

[Guilhem Saurel]

Hi,

The release v1.0.0 is imminent. The license says

Stack Of Tasks development team

@andreadelprete: do you want to add anything ?

[Justin Carpentier]

The original license is coming from people of Eigen. Please copy/past where it is required.

[Justin Carpentier]

I think @jmirabel may provide some hints about the original license

[Joseph Mirabel]

Here are the pieces of information I could gather:

About the license of quadprog, I traced back the origin of the file:

• original version: QuadProg++, MIT License,
  https://github.com/liuq/QuadProgpp/ (see
  liuq/QuadProgpp@8767d07)

• first port: uQuadProg++, GPL at first but became LGPL v3 License,
  http://siloe.deis.unical.it/~angelo/node/133,
  https://github.com/fx74/uQuadProg

• Then, there is eiquadprog.hpp: under GPL, but the license was not
  updated when uQuadProg became LGPL. The same author (Gael Guennebaud,
  Eigen's leader) did the same job with QuadProg++ and the file is LGPL
  (https://gitlab.inria.fr/alta/alta/blob/3c11d5a4ed6cd15ed39f938a1da1aecad1a4b31e/external/quadprog++/QuadProg++.cc)

• Finally, the version on this page, which has the same license as
  eiquadprog.hpp: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~bstephe1/

To conclude, I think we can safely assume quadprog is LGPL.

[Justin Carpentier]

So the core code of this module should be LGPL and not BSD as currently mentioned.

[Joseph Mirabel]

I think it should be GPL, except if Gael Guennebaud (and maybe Benjamin Stephens) agrees to change this to LGPL.

[Andrea Del Prete]

Very good job backtracking the origin of this piece of code @jmirabel !
I confirm that this matches what I knew about it, and that I started my development from the version of Benjamin Stephens.

[Guilhem Saurel]

Thanks for that job :D

From the link in #2, it looks like Gael Guennebaud latest version is LGPL, so I think that we can use that.

[Joseph Mirabel]

I think you can assume Gael Guennebaud has already accepted the LGPL licence.

[Gabriele Buondonno]

Hi everybody,
so are we going for LGPL?
Concretely, what action should we take and where should the licence info go?
Is it enough to change the LICENSE file?
@jcarpent, what do you think?
@nim65s, could you take care of it?

[Guilhem Saurel]

According to GNU, for the LGPL (and their other licenses), in addition of the main file, we have to put a license notice in each and every file.

I hate that, but will do it.

[Guilhem Saurel]

Fixed and released. Thank you all on this issue :)

[Gabriele Buondonno]

Thanks @nim65s :)