On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 3:42 AM, Robert Dionne <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think EUnit is now baked into Erlang so the license shouldn't be an issue.
I wish it was that easy. Actually, I'm a bit concerned about OTP redistributing EUnit since I'm not sure their EPL (an MPL-derivative, I reckon) is compatible with EUnit's LGPL. Has EUnit been relicensed and/or is there any homework from the Erlang folks that talks about compatibility (a quick search revealed the question has been brought up, see http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/2008-December/040313.html, but I can't really find closure)? Know that we cannot really hide behind OTP redistributing EUnit, as license violations/incompatibilities are still affecting downstream users. > I would imagine the LGPL would be compatible with Apache2.0, I know the > GPLv3 is. Careful here. You can combine GPLv3 stuff with Apache 2.0, with the aggregate being GPLv3'd. The opposite isn't true, though. See http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html (which, BTW, is pretty clear in stating that EUnit wouldn't be kosher) > The apache foundation must have a lawyer or two who could answer > this. Indeed - I suggested poking [email protected] as a start but I'm not sure it has been done. I can do that, if you want. Ciao, -- Gianugo Rabellino Sourcesense, making sense of Open Source: http://www.sourcesense.com (blogging at http://www.rabellino.it/blog/)
