<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-15"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Okay, thanks for the history lesson ;-)<br>
<br>
I assume we should go ahead and release the MetaMatrix Designer plugins
as EPL. Do you have any comment on that?<br>
<br>
Looking through the feature.xml files in JBDS 3.0.0 Beta1, I don't see <i>anything</i>
that is GPL. All of them reference EPL.<br>
<br>
According to the feature.xml files, even the modules that were LGPL in
the Tools side are EPL on the DevStudio side. How do you manage the
dual-license like that?<br>
<br>
Steve<br>
<br>
Max Rydahl Andersen wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:op.ukblfwcaw1tq5a@max-pc" type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">It looks like you guys use LGPL for the .org
release and EPL for DevStudio. Is that correct?
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
No ;)
<br>
<br>
JBoss Tools is a mix of licenses (LGPL, ASL and EPL dependent on which
module you look at).
<br>
Over time we will converge towards EPL (everything new done is EPL)
<br>
<br>
JBDS is a bundle distributed under GPL, but its subparts are as mixed
as the above.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Can you briefly explain why?
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Large part of JBossIDE modules and Hibernate Tools is LGPL for historic
(or dependency reasons) and can't be easily changed to EPL
<br>
Drools was ASL, but is becoming EPL
<br>
Old Exadel was closed source but was released under EPL and new stuff
in this area is EPL
<br>
<br>
JBDS is under GPL to ensure it is not bastardized by competition; we
want it to stay opensource.
<br>
<br>
/max
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>