Tassilo Horn wrote: [...] > Hm, citing the EPL FAQ: > > ,---- > | Further, you may not combine EPL and GPL code in any scenario where > | source code under those licenses are both the same source code module. > `---- > > I have to admit, that I don't really understand that sentence. I can > read it, that only mixing (in the sense of copy&paste) EPL code and GPL
They mean that EPL'd modules must be free from any protected expression copied from the GPL'd code. See http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise22.html (III.B. Abstraction, Filtration, Comparison) > code in one file is forbidden. I can also read it, that I may not have > a JAR-file containing GPL code bundled with an EPL project. A JAR-file is an aggregation of "modules" in binary form. You may have a JAR-file containing GPL'd modules "bundled" with EPL'd modules. > > Well, but the FSF's statement is clear: > > ,---- > | Based upon the position of the Free Software Foundation, you may not > | combine EPL and GPL code in any scenario where linking exists between > | code made available under those licenses. The above applies to both > | GPL version 2 and GPL version 3. > `---- The position of the Free Software Foundation may be upheld only in a court of the GNU Republic (i.e. not in this reality). Ignore the allegedly "GPL incompatibility" nonsense. See http://markmail.org/message/pkwi5gzoxx3gdoas Hth. regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
