verveine licensing
Locked
 
|
BTW,
I was looking at this license stuff yesterday. Since verveineJ is based on JDT and JDT uses the EPL (Eclipse Public License), VerveineJ could be required to use the EPL also ... "According to article 1(b) of the EPL, additions to the original work may be licensed independently, including under a commercial license, provided such additions are "separate modules of software" and do not constitute a derivative work.[4][5] Changes and additions which do constitute a derivative work must be licensed under the same terms and conditions of the EPL, which includes the requirement to make source code available" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclipse_Public_License] "The EPL is approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI) and listed as a "free software license" by the Free Software Foundation (FSF)" any comment? nicolas -- Nicolas Anquetil Univ. Lille1 / INRIA-equipe RMod _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
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, [hidden email] wrote: > BTW, > > I was looking at this license stuff yesterday. > Since verveineJ is based on JDT and JDT uses the EPL (Eclipse Public > License), VerveineJ could be required to use the EPL also ... > > "According to article 1(b) of the EPL, additions to the original work > may be licensed independently, including under a commercial license, > provided such additions are "separate modules of software" and do not > constitute a derivative work.[4][5] Changes and additions which do > constitute a derivative work must be licensed under the same terms and > conditions of the EPL, which includes the requirement to make source > code available" > [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclipse_Public_License] > > "The EPL is approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI) and listed as > a "free software license" by the Free Software Foundation (FSF)" > > > any comment? > > > nicolas > > -- > Nicolas Anquetil Univ. Lille1 / INRIA-equipe RMod > > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > [hidden email] > https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev -- Johan Fabry [hidden email] - http://dcc.uchile.cl/~jfabry PLEIAD Lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
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 requires various Eclipse plugins (as jars) to run nicolas On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Johan Fabry <[hidden email]> wrote: > > 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, [hidden email] wrote: > >> BTW, >> >> I was looking at this license stuff yesterday. >> Since verveineJ is based on JDT and JDT uses the EPL (Eclipse Public >> License), VerveineJ could be required to use the EPL also ... >> >> "According to article 1(b) of the EPL, additions to the original work >> may be licensed independently, including under a commercial license, >> provided such additions are "separate modules of software" and do not >> constitute a derivative work.[4][5] Changes and additions which do >> constitute a derivative work must be licensed under the same terms and >> conditions of the EPL, which includes the requirement to make source >> code available" >> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclipse_Public_License] >> >> "The EPL is approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI) and listed as >> a "free software license" by the Free Software Foundation (FSF)" >> >> >> any comment? >> >> >> nicolas >> >> -- >> Nicolas Anquetil Univ. Lille1 / INRIA-equipe RMod >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Moose-dev mailing list >> [hidden email] >> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev > > -- > Johan Fabry > [hidden email] - http://dcc.uchile.cl/~jfabry > PLEIAD Lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > [hidden email] > https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev > -- Nicolas Anquetil Univ. Lille1 / INRIA-equipe RMod _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
Hi Nicolas,
Any news on this topic? Cheers, Doru On 4 Nov 2010, at 15:36, [hidden email] 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 requires > various Eclipse plugins (as jars) to run > > nicolas > > On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Johan Fabry <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> 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, [hidden email] wrote: >> >>> BTW, >>> >>> I was looking at this license stuff yesterday. >>> Since verveineJ is based on JDT and JDT uses the EPL (Eclipse Public >>> License), VerveineJ could be required to use the EPL also ... >>> >>> "According to article 1(b) of the EPL, additions to the original work >>> may be licensed independently, including under a commercial license, >>> provided such additions are "separate modules of software" and do not >>> constitute a derivative work.[4][5] Changes and additions which do >>> constitute a derivative work must be licensed under the same terms and >>> conditions of the EPL, which includes the requirement to make source >>> code available" >>> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclipse_Public_License] >>> >>> "The EPL is approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI) and listed as >>> a "free software license" by the Free Software Foundation (FSF)" >>> >>> >>> any comment? >>> >>> >>> nicolas >>> >>> -- >>> Nicolas Anquetil Univ. Lille1 / INRIA-equipe RMod >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Moose-dev mailing list >>> [hidden email] >>> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev >> >> -- >> Johan Fabry >> [hidden email] - http://dcc.uchile.cl/~jfabry >> PLEIAD Lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Moose-dev mailing list >> [hidden email] >> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev >> > > > > -- > Nicolas Anquetil Univ. Lille1 / INRIA-equipe RMod > > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > [hidden email] > https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev -- www.tudorgirba.com "Next time you see your life passing by, say 'hi' and get to know her." _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
Nop :-(
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) >From reading http://www.eclipse.org/legal/eplfaq.php I understood that: - 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 code :-( 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 at least. 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. nicolas ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Tudor Girba" <[hidden email]> > À: "Moose-related development" <[hidden email]> > Envoyé: Mercredi 19 Janvier 2011 23:26:12 > Objet: [Moose-dev] Re: verveine licensing > Hi Nicolas, > > Any news on this topic? > > Cheers, > Doru > > > > On 4 Nov 2010, at 15:36, [hidden email] 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 > > requires > > various Eclipse plugins (as jars) to run > > > > nicolas > > > > On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Johan Fabry <[hidden email]> > > wrote: > >> > >> 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, [hidden email] wrote: > >> > >>> BTW, > >>> > >>> I was looking at this license stuff yesterday. > >>> Since verveineJ is based on JDT and JDT uses the EPL (Eclipse > >>> Public > >>> License), VerveineJ could be required to use the EPL also ... > >>> > >>> "According to article 1(b) of the EPL, additions to the original > >>> work > >>> may be licensed independently, including under a commercial > >>> license, > >>> provided such additions are "separate modules of software" and do > >>> not > >>> constitute a derivative work.[4][5] Changes and additions which do > >>> constitute a derivative work must be licensed under the same terms > >>> and > >>> conditions of the EPL, which includes the requirement to make > >>> source > >>> code available" > >>> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclipse_Public_License] > >>> > >>> "The EPL is approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI) and > >>> listed as > >>> a "free software license" by the Free Software Foundation (FSF)" > >>> > >>> > >>> any comment? > >>> > >>> > >>> nicolas > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Nicolas Anquetil Univ. Lille1 / INRIA-equipe RMod > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Moose-dev mailing list > >>> [hidden email] > >>> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev > >> > >> -- > >> Johan Fabry > >> [hidden email] - http://dcc.uchile.cl/~jfabry > >> PLEIAD Lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of > >> Chile > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Moose-dev mailing list > >> [hidden email] > >> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Nicolas Anquetil Univ. Lille1 / INRIA-equipe RMod > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Moose-dev mailing list > > [hidden email] > > https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > > "Next time you see your life passing by, say 'hi' and get to know > her." > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > [hidden email] > https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
«
Return to Moose
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |