On 2013-06-26 17:12, Graham Inggs wrote: > [...] > Hi Niels > > Thanks for your response. > > I will try to find out more about this. > > To start with though, here are excerpts from section 27 and 32 of the > EPL FAQ [1]: > > * If you have made a copy of existing Eclipse code and made a few minor > revisions to it, that is a derivative work. If you've written your own > Eclipse plug-in with 100% your own code to implement functionality not > currently in Eclipse, then it is not a derivative work. > > * The EPL and the GPL are not compatible in any combination where the > result would be considered either: (a) a "derivative work" (which > Eclipse interprets consistent with the definition of that term in the > U.S. Copyright Act ) or (b) a work "based on" the GPL code, as that > phrase is used in the GPLv2, GPLv3 or the GPL FAQ as applicable. > > So I don't think Eclox would be considered (a) a derivative work, but I > am not sure what they mean by (b). > I believe Fedora have packaged Eclox, I wonder if they considered this? > > Regards > Graham > > [1] http://www.eclipse.org/legal/eplfaq.php >
I always considered the two licenses for completely incompatiable, but it is possible that interpretation have been too zealous. But IANAL. ~Niels -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/51cb093e.6070...@thykier.net
