I was thinking about it the other day.
As I already said VerveineJ uses JDT
JDT uses the Eclipse Public License (EPL).
EPL is a free software licence (accepted as such by FSF and OSI)
It is apparently similar to BSD
EPL is not compatible with GPL (for information)
- We cannot change the licence of JDT inside verveineJ if we distribute source code
- Maybe we could if we distribute only compiled code ?!?
But I still don't know what to do if we distribute our code which uses compiled JDT
I see two solutions:
- licence VerveineJ under the EPL, that would probably be the simplest solution
- licence verveinJ under some other free licence as BSD or MIT. We know it cannot be GPL
I personaly do not really mind one or the other. Unless somebody as something against it,
I would propose to go for the simplest solution (EPL) and be done with it.
----- Mail original -----
De: "Tudor Girba" <tudor.girba(a)gmail.com>
À: "Moose-related development" <moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch>
Envoyé: Mercredi 19 Janvier 2011 23:26:12
Objet: [Moose-dev] Re: verveine licensing
Any news on this topic?
On 4 Nov 2010, at 15:36, anquetil.nicolas(a)gmail.com wrote:
> yes, we will ask a license guru.
> Because it is not a plugin, but it includes JDT (it is actually
> implemented as a sub-class of one Main class in JDT), and it
> various Eclipse plugins (as jars) to run
> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Johan Fabry <jfabry(a)dcc.uchile.cl>
>> If it's a plugin I think its safe to say it's a separate module. If
>> you distribute verveine together with parts of eclipse then it's
>> going to get muddy I think. Better talk to some licensing gurus at
>> INRIA ?
>> On 04 Nov 2010, at 10:22, anquetil.nicolas(a)gmail.com wrote:
>>> I was looking at this license stuff yesterday.
>>> Since verveineJ is based on JDT and JDT uses the EPL (Eclipse
>>> License), VerveineJ could be required to use the EPL also ...
>>> "According to article 1(b) of the EPL, additions to the original
>>> may be licensed independently, including under a commercial
>>> provided such additions are "separate modules of software" and do
>>> constitute a derivative work. Changes and additions which do
>>> constitute a derivative work must be licensed under the same terms
>>> conditions of the EPL, which includes the requirement to make
>>> code available"
>>> "The EPL is approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI) and
>>> listed as
>>> a "free software license" by the Free Software Foundation
>>> any comment?
>>> Nicolas Anquetil Univ. Lille1 / INRIA-equipe RMod
>>> Moose-dev mailing list
>> Johan Fabry
>> jfabry(a)dcc.uchile.cl - http://dcc.uchile.cl/~jfabry
>> PLEIAD Lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of
>> Moose-dev mailing list
> Nicolas Anquetil Univ. Lille1 / INRIA-equipe RMod
> Moose-dev mailing list
"Next time you see your life passing by, say 'hi' and get to know
Moose-dev mailing list