[rules-users] EPL relicense for eclipse tooling

[Mark Proctor]

Steven Núñez wrote:
> Stay with BSD-style license.... No need to muddy the waters...
>   
We'll its not quite as simple as that. All other JBoss tooling is EPL 
and Drools stuff isn't, it's ASL. However the new synchronisation code 
for the repository is considered "generic" tooling and they want to put 
this under the EPL, as it's not owned by Drools team. Mixing EPL and 
other license in the same svn repository is apparently a bad idea, so 
I've had a request from the JBoss Tools people to do a complete 
re-license to make things easier. Now we can continue with the Drools 
owned parts staying ASL and other bits being EPL, but you'll still have 
a product with muddy waters due to mixed licensing - I think it's 
unlikely I'll win the argument to ASL any generic parts if they happened 
to be used with Drools. But I wanted to put this out to the community 
for open debate on the pros and cons. I don't consider the EPL to have 
the same political issues to the LGPL, so I'm personally less concerned 
about the political issues.
>
> On 18/06/08 12:31 AM, "Mark Proctor" <mproctor at codehaus.org> wrote:
>
>   
>> I'm contemplating EPLing the Eclipse tooling, anyone have any opions on
>> this, good or bad?
>>
>> Mark
>> _______________________________________________
>> rules-users mailing list
>> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>>     
>
>   

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20080618/fbdbca5c/attachment.html