On Jun 5, 2008, at 8:24 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hmm... David isn't too happy with the Eclipse part. > > I personally don't care either way, so it may be up to Zooko to > open this debate.
I personally don't use Eclipse (I use Emacs), but I know that a lot of other people do, and I know that there is a darcs eclipse integration project [1], and that there are "Eclipse distributions" which are packages containing Eclipse with various extensions and plugins [2]. Having the Eclipse licence included in the set of licences which can cover source code legitimately combined with darcs would remove one potential roadblock from anyone who in the future wants to include darcs in an "Eclipse distribution". David didn't mention what specifically he didn't like about the Eclipse licence, so I can't comment on that. I know that it is approved by OSI as an "Open Source licence" [3] and by FSF as a (GPL- incompatible) "Free Software licence" [4]. More general information about it can be found on wikipedia: [5]. Regards, Zooko [1] http://eclipsedarcs.org/doku.php [2] http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/library/os-eclipse- dist/ [3] http://www.opensource.org/licenses/eclipse-1.0.php [4] http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/#GPLIncompatibleLicenses [5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclipse_Public_License _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
