> > This concerns me, particularly adding user viewable headers in them. *If* > template output is a derivative work then it's hard to see how Bertrand's > point 5 applies. >
A FAQ entry like the following is something I'd very much like to avoid! > It's why some projects deliberately put templates under no license. > https://www.eclipse.org/legal/eplfaq.php#CODEGEN Oh, that FAQ is just glorious! The only "sane" solution is to make the templates pluggable! You make releases with your own templates but allow the community to make public domain templates and if somebody really worries about that, they install the public domain templates plugin. Of course, a commercial tools vendor will have no such rigid restrictions and will very nicely give you in writing with your invoice that those tiny little templates don't create any derivative works when used. --emi On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 9:37 PM, Neil C Smith <[email protected] > wrote: > On Wed, 11 Oct 2017, 17:45 Matthias Bläsing, <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > and to be clear: The templates will never be Public Domain, even if > > there is no license header they stay ALv2. > > > > This concerns me, particularly adding user viewable headers in them. *If* > template output is a derivative work then it's hard to see how Bertrand's > point 5 applies. > > A FAQ entry like the following is something I'd very much like to avoid! > It's why some projects deliberately put templates under no license. > > https://www.eclipse.org/legal/eplfaq.php#CODEGEN > > Best wishes, > > Neil > > > -- > Neil C Smith > Artist & Technologist > www.neilcsmith.net > > Praxis LIVE - hybrid visual IDE for creative coding - www.praxislive.org >
