Hi,
Is it permitted to have a program licensed under GPLv3 and an EPL software in
one binary distribution? There is no share of source code ore use of a library.
The GPL binary executes the EPL binary as an external process (as a command
line tool).
I interpret that as an aggregate:
A
Mike,
The answer, as always, is it depends. Have you read [1] and [2]? They
capture the basic positions of both the FSF and the Eclipse Foundation.
However, they do focus primarily on the plug-in scenario.
[1] http://mmilinkov.wordpress.com/2010/04/06/epl-gpl-commentary/
[2]
Quoting Henrik Ingo (henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi):
On this topic there are many opinions out there and little case law,
but personally I've always thought that if the FSF as the author of
the GPL thinks something is permitted, then at least that much must be
permitted and you can quite safely
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote:
Quoting Henrik Ingo (henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi):
On this topic there are many opinions out there and little case law,
but personally I've always thought that if the FSF as the author of
the GPL thinks something is
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 10:31:00PM +0200, Henrik Ingo wrote:
On this topic there are many opinions out there and little case law,
but personally I've always thought that if the FSF as the author of
the GPL thinks something is permitted, then at least that much must be
permitted and you can
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 11:00:00PM +0200, Henrik Ingo wrote:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote:
Quoting Henrik Ingo (henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi):
On this topic there are many opinions out there and little case law,
but personally I've always thought that
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 11:29 PM, Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com wrote:
In that, the only way the opinion of the license's author really seems to
factor into things once the license has already been written is as a
contribution to the common understanding of the license. For that
purpose,
I just wanted to point out that this thread has now gone quite off topic. The
original question concerned bundling GPL with EPL, not GPL with proprietary
code.
Mike Milinkovich
mike.milinkov...@eclipse.org
+1.613.220.3223
-Original Message-
From: David Woolley
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 11:40:52PM +0200, Henrik Ingo wrote:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 11:29 PM, Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com wrote:
In that, the only way the opinion of the license's author really seems to
factor into things once the license has already been written is as a
contribution
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 05:34:45PM -0700, Chad Perrin wrote:
If the FSF's is the more restrictive interpretation, you then
need to consider cases where the FSF has taken up the mantle of defender
of works for which it arguably did not have a notable direct copyright
interest, as in the Busybox
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 08:51:34PM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 05:34:45PM -0700, Chad Perrin wrote:
If the FSF's is the more restrictive interpretation, you then
need to consider cases where the FSF has taken up the mantle of defender
of works for which it arguably
11 matches
Mail list logo
