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

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

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

One small amendment to what Dan said. EPL is copyleft if you're distributing a derivative or even the original work in source form. Distribution in object form allows for a different license as long as all the contributions acknowledgement remains, hence the permissive part. The Eclipse Foundation has stated that with eclipse, plugins do not qualify as a derivative work. I'm reasonably sure we can say the same for Forge. AFAIK, we have no patents on any of Forge, but the EPL allows for patents similarly to the ASL should that be a concern for anyone. Sent from my iPhone On May 26, 2012, at 14:24, 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 _______________________________________________ forge-dev mailing list forge-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev

+1 from me too. After having a short review of the differences EPL seems to be the most suitable. IMHO any proprietary plugin built on Forge automatically fosters the quality of the core - the best plugin will be useless on an instable foundation. APL seems to be too permissive as this backlash is not enforced, allowing kind of "we have the stable Forge" parallel development. GPL V2 may be ok too but incompatible with EPL/APL, V3 seems to be too political. If technical excellency is the primary goal, then I would go for EPL. Thomas Sent from my good old Linux 3.1.10-1.9 desktop down in the cellars where I am allowed to do the real stuff ;-) Am 26.05.2012 23:47, schrieb Dan Allen: > +1 Nice additions. I think the EPL really captures the spirit of the > permissive licensing for addons and copyleft for the core that should > allow each party to have the "freedom" (quoted due to the dual > meaning) they want. > > -Dan > _______________________________________________ forge-dev mailing list forge-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev