On 2010-10-11 13:30:26, Thomas Koch wrote: > @eclim: see http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=551861 > > Hi Niels, > > > The license of eclipse (EPL) and eclim (GPLv3) are not compatible so if > > eclim links against eclipse, then there is an issue. I have not checked > > whether this is this case with eclim, but it is likely. > > > > This incompatibility is acknowledged both by GNU and eclipse: > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclipse_Public_License > > http://www.eclipse.org/legal/eplfaq.php#GPLCOMPATIBLE > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses > thank you for pointing this out. I'm not sure whether this incompatibility is > an issue here. AFAIK Eclim delivers a bunch of eclipse plugins, some VIM > plugins and relies on nailgun[1] for the communication between VIM and > Eclipse. > Is it possible to package Eclipse plugins that are licensed under the GPL3? If > not, we should ask the Eclim project if it could add an additional license. > Should it be the Eclipse license then or would a BSD license do? > > [1] http://martiansoftware.com/nailgun/ > > Best regards, > > Thomas Koch, http://www.koch.ro
Note, the expected "I'm not a lawyer" applies to my interpretation of these licenses: GPL and EPL are not compatible, but the GPL3 has the following exception: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs "If you want your program to link against a library not covered by the system library exception, you need to provide permission to do that. ... Only the copyright holders for the program can legally release their software under these terms. If you wrote the whole program yourself, then assuming your employer or school does not claim the copyright, you are the copyright holder—so you can authorize the exception." The EPL also has has different interpretation of a "derivative work" allowing eclipse plugins to not automatically need to be licensed under the EPL: http://www.eclipse.org/legal/eplfaq.php#DERIV 26. Some free software communities say that linking to their code automatically means that your program is a derivative work. Is this the position of the Eclipse Foundation? No, the Eclipse Foundation interprets the term "derivative work" in a way that is consistent with the definition in the U.S. Copyright Act, as applicable to computer software. Therefore, linking to Eclipse code might or might not create a derivative work, depending on all of the other facts and circumstances. 27. I‘m a programmer not a lawyer, can you give me a clear cut example of when something is or is not a derivative work? If you have made a copy of existing Eclipse code and made a few minor revisions to it, that is a derivative work. If you've written your own Eclipse plug-in with 100% your own code to implement functionality not currently in Eclipse, then it is not a derivative work. Scenarios between those two extremes will require you to seek the advice of your own legal counsel in deciding whether your program constitutes a derivative work. For clarity, merely interfacing or interoperating with Eclipse plug-in APIs (without modification) does not make an Eclipse plug-in a derivative work. You can also read the eclim NOTICE file where I attempt to comply with requirements of the licenses of software utilized by eclim: http://github.com/ervandew/eclim/blob/master/NOTICE -- eric -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101011141800.gd5...@cartman.gateway.2wire.net
