Re: [forge-dev] Forge License

Oops, I totally got that wrong. EPL is a copyleft license. The important difference from LGPL is that EPL clearly states that linking is not a derivative work (the main confusion over LGPL) and allows relicensing of binaries under commercial terms. Thus, it's very business/commercial friendly for plugin writers. Like LGPL, modifications to source code in Forge proper do have to be contributed back. So I guess ASL is on the table. (I'm still not sure I would advocate ASL to EPL, but time will tell). -- Sent from my CyanogenMod-powered Android device, an open platform for carriers, developers and consumers. On May 26, 2012 4:24 PM, "Dan Allen" <dan.j.allen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I was going to say, this isn't a switch from APL to ESL. I doubt I'd advocate for that switch ever. This about LGPL to EPL, from a weak copyleft to a permissive license. (The general thinking is that the permissive license makes communities easier to grow and with the right motivation, though it really depends on the circumstances.) EPL is a well designed permissive license for tool platforms that support plugins. I encourage you to read it and we can discuss how it applies. I'll save my commentary until then. -Dan -- Sent from my CyanogenMod-powered Android device, an open platform for carriers, developers and consumers. On May 26, 2012 12:50 AM, "Lincoln Baxter, III" <lincolnbaxter(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: For clarification, Forge is currently LGPL :) On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 3:29 PM, George Gastaldi <gegastaldi(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Absolutely ! Feel free to add anything related to it on the issue. Regards, George Gastaldi 2012/5/24 Jason Porter <lightguard.jp(a)gmail.com&gt;: > I think those interested would want to know pros / cons in laymen's terms. Could we have that in the JIRA? > > Sent from my iPhone > > On May 24, 2012, at 13:23, George Gastaldi <gegastaldi(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > >> Hello all, >> >> >> Dan Allen, Lincoln and I were discussing about moving Forge license to >> EPL (Eclipse) instead of the current Apache one. >> What are your thoughts about it? Glad if you could post your comments >> on https://issues.jboss.org/browse/FORGE-580 >> >> Thanks, >> >> George Gastaldi >> _______________________________________________ >> forge-dev mailing list >> forge-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev > > _______________________________________________ > forge-dev mailing list > forge-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev _______________________________________________ forge-dev mailing list forge-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev -- Lincoln Baxter, III http://ocpsoft.org "Simpler is better." _______________________________________________ forge-dev mailing list forge-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev _______________________________________________ forge-dev mailing list forge-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev