I proposed that one way to integrate the commercial-licensed JxBrowser with the GPL-licensed Saros would be to turn the browser component into a separate plugin and license that under the Apache license.
Stefan writes: ----- http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins And now the "fun" begins ... reading that chapter it is even hard to decide if you can develop a simple Eclipse IDE Plugin using GPL as you are calling Eclipse Code which is not licensed under GPL. ----- and later adds: ----- Seems we were never allowed to ship out plugin anyways ... at least not with the original GPL. https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/using-the-gpl-for-eclipse-plug-ins http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs ----- No, that is not a problem. That FAQ and blog article are not written well. The viral "thou shalt provide source code" clause in the GPL license applies to _distributing_ software, not to running it. We do not distribute Eclipse. See here, Term 3: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html Our GPL would be a problem for the Eclipse foundation if they wanted to distribute a complete Eclipse download that included Saros. If an Eclipse user downloads Saros himself/herself, however, Saros' GPL is not a problem. Likewise for the browser component: If that is distributed separately (which a separate plugin, by virtue of being separate, will), it has no connection with Saros' GPL-ed code from the GPL's point of view and is therefore not infected by it. Arsenij writes: ----- Wasn't the plan to switch to Apache Licence 2.0 anyway? ----- Yes. But the emphasis is on "plan". We need to contact 50+ authors, which will be a major effort. We simply have not done this yet. Lutz ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Slashdot TV. Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters. http://tv.slashdot.org/ _______________________________________________ DPP-Devel mailing list DPP-Devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dpp-devel
