[forge-dev] Forge License

[Dan Allen]

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 at gmail.com> 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 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> For clarification, Forge is currently LGPL :)
>>
>> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 3:29 PM, George Gastaldi <gegastaldi at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Absolutely ! Feel free to add anything related to it on the issue.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> George Gastaldi
>>>
>>> 2012/5/24 Jason Porter <lightguard.jp at gmail.com>:
>>> > 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 at gmail.com>
>>> 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 at lists.jboss.org
>>> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > forge-dev mailing list
>>> > forge-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> forge-dev mailing list
>>> forge-dev at 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 at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/forge-dev/attachments/20120526/82a7a243/attachment.html