[forge-dev] Forge License

[Jason Porter]

The license doesn't say the changes must be contributed back. AFAIK, no OSS license states that. What it does say is that the source must be under the same EPL license. That way it makes it possible for the original authors to cherry pick changes should they desire. 

Sent from my iPhone

On May 26, 2012, at 14:43, Dan Allen <dan.j.allen at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120526/85201c15/attachment-0001.html