Eclipse Community Forums
Forum Search:

Search      Help    Register    Login    Home
Home » General (non-technical) » Eclipse Foundation » About SWT and CPL (or EPL)
About SWT and CPL (or EPL) [message #13737] Tue, 25 January 2005 13:35 Go to next message
Eclipse User
Originally posted by: ufel2522.giga.net.tw

I look for many CPL related articles, but i still have some questions.

1. If i use SWT library (without any modification) to write a program, do
i need to public my source code?

2. This program can incoporate with any other license? for example, if i
write a program using SWT as GUI framework (CPL), A framework (BSD
license) and B framework (LGPL), is it legal?

3. This program can be a commercial product?

Thanks for your help! :)
Re: About SWT and CPL (or EPL) [message #13954 is a reply to message #13737] Wed, 26 January 2005 21:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mike Milinkovich is currently offline Mike Milinkovich
Messages: 258
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Bear,

These are answered in the EPL FAQ at
http://www.eclipse.org/legal/eplfaq.html

1. Yes, sees answers #15 and 16
2. Probably not. See answer #14
3. Yes, see answers #15 and 17

Hope this helps.

/mike


"Bear" <ufel2522@giga.net.tw> wrote in message
news:ct5hvi$8j5$1@www.eclipse.org...
>I look for many CPL related articles, but i still have some questions.
>
> 1. If i use SWT library (without any modification) to write a program, do
> i need to public my source code?
>
> 2. This program can incoporate with any other license? for example, if i
> write a program using SWT as GUI framework (CPL), A framework (BSD
> license) and B framework (LGPL), is it legal?
>
> 3. This program can be a commercial product?
>
> Thanks for your help! :)
>
Re: About SWT and CPL (or EPL) [message #13962 is a reply to message #13954] Wed, 26 January 2005 22:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eclipse User
Originally posted by: mark.melvin.dspfactory.com

I think the answer to #1 is No. If he is using an unmodified EPL-based
"Program" (SWT), he doesn't have to include source for *his* Program
(module) that is added to it. At least that is how I read the EPL v1.0
and FAQ answer #21... The EPL states that a "Contribution" is:

a) in the case of the initial Contributor, the initial code and
documentation distributed under this Agreement, and
b) in the case of each subsequent Contributor:

i) changes to the Program, and

ii) additions to the Program;

where such changes and/or additions to the Program originate from and
are distributed by that particular Contributor. A Contribution
'originates' from a Contributor if it was added to the Program by such
Contributor itself or anyone acting on such Contributor's behalf.
Contributions do not include additions to the Program which: (i) are
separate modules of software distributed in conjunction with the Program
under their own license agreement, and (ii) are not derivative works of
the Program.

I'm assuming using SWT as your GUI library of choice (i.e. depending on
the SWT dll and jar file being present) would put your module in case B,
an "addition" to the "Program" (SWT), which is (i) a separate module of
software distributed in conjunction with the Program under its own
license agreement, and (ii) not a derivative work of the Program. Or am
I missing something?

M.

Mike Milinkovich wrote:
> Bear,
>
> These are answered in the EPL FAQ at
> http://www.eclipse.org/legal/eplfaq.html
>
> 1. Yes, sees answers #15 and 16
> 2. Probably not. See answer #14
> 3. Yes, see answers #15 and 17
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> /mike
>
>
> "Bear" <ufel2522@giga.net.tw> wrote in message
> news:ct5hvi$8j5$1@www.eclipse.org...
>
>>I look for many CPL related articles, but i still have some questions.
>>
>>1. If i use SWT library (without any modification) to write a program, do
>>i need to public my source code?
>>
>>2. This program can incoporate with any other license? for example, if i
>>write a program using SWT as GUI framework (CPL), A framework (BSD
>>license) and B framework (LGPL), is it legal?
>>
>>3. This program can be a commercial product?
>>
>>Thanks for your help! :)
>>
>
>
>
Re: About SWT and CPL (or EPL) [message #13965 is a reply to message #13962] Wed, 26 January 2005 23:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mike Milinkovich is currently offline Mike Milinkovich
Messages: 258
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Duh. Sorry. I meant to say "no". I really did, honest :o)

"Mark Melvin" <mark.melvin@dspfactory.com> wrote in message
news:ct97dh$23n$1@www.eclipse.org...
>I think the answer to #1 is No. If he is using an unmodified EPL-based
>"Program" (SWT), he doesn't have to include source for *his* Program
>(module) that is added to it. At least that is how I read the EPL v1.0 and
>FAQ answer #21... The EPL states that a "Contribution" is:
>
> a) in the case of the initial Contributor, the initial code and
> documentation distributed under this Agreement, and
> b) in the case of each subsequent Contributor:
>
> i) changes to the Program, and
>
> ii) additions to the Program;
>
> where such changes and/or additions to the Program originate from and are
> distributed by that particular Contributor. A Contribution 'originates'
> from a Contributor if it was added to the Program by such Contributor
> itself or anyone acting on such Contributor's behalf. Contributions do not
> include additions to the Program which: (i) are separate modules of
> software distributed in conjunction with the Program under their own
> license agreement, and (ii) are not derivative works of the Program.
>
> I'm assuming using SWT as your GUI library of choice (i.e. depending on
> the SWT dll and jar file being present) would put your module in case B,
> an "addition" to the "Program" (SWT), which is (i) a separate module of
> software distributed in conjunction with the Program under its own license
> agreement, and (ii) not a derivative work of the Program. Or am I missing
> something?
>
> M.
>
> Mike Milinkovich wrote:
>> Bear,
>>
>> These are answered in the EPL FAQ at
>> http://www.eclipse.org/legal/eplfaq.html
>>
>> 1. Yes, sees answers #15 and 16
>> 2. Probably not. See answer #14
>> 3. Yes, see answers #15 and 17
>>
>> Hope this helps.
>>
>> /mike
>>
>>
>> "Bear" <ufel2522@giga.net.tw> wrote in message
>> news:ct5hvi$8j5$1@www.eclipse.org...
>>
>>>I look for many CPL related articles, but i still have some questions.
>>>
>>>1. If i use SWT library (without any modification) to write a program, do
>>>i need to public my source code?
>>>
>>>2. This program can incoporate with any other license? for example, if i
>>>write a program using SWT as GUI framework (CPL), A framework (BSD
>>>license) and B framework (LGPL), is it legal?
>>>
>>>3. This program can be a commercial product?
>>>
>>>Thanks for your help! :)
>>>
>>
>>
Re: About SWT and CPL (or EPL) [message #13970 is a reply to message #13965] Thu, 27 January 2005 14:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eclipse User
Originally posted by: mark.melvin.dspfactory.com

Although if he was recompiling SWT (even with no changes) and re-selling
it as a commercial product...then I think the answer would be "yes".

Although he may have trouble selling it... ;o)

M.

Mike Milinkovich wrote:

> Duh. Sorry. I meant to say "no". I really did, honest :o)
>
> "Mark Melvin" <mark.melvin@dspfactory.com> wrote in message
> news:ct97dh$23n$1@www.eclipse.org...
>
>>I think the answer to #1 is No. If he is using an unmodified EPL-based
>>"Program" (SWT), he doesn't have to include source for *his* Program
>>(module) that is added to it. At least that is how I read the EPL v1.0 and
>>FAQ answer #21... The EPL states that a "Contribution" is:
>>
>>a) in the case of the initial Contributor, the initial code and
>>documentation distributed under this Agreement, and
>>b) in the case of each subsequent Contributor:
>>
>>i) changes to the Program, and
>>
>>ii) additions to the Program;
>>
>>where such changes and/or additions to the Program originate from and are
>>distributed by that particular Contributor. A Contribution 'originates'
>>from a Contributor if it was added to the Program by such Contributor
>>itself or anyone acting on such Contributor's behalf. Contributions do not
>>include additions to the Program which: (i) are separate modules of
>>software distributed in conjunction with the Program under their own
>>license agreement, and (ii) are not derivative works of the Program.
>>
>>I'm assuming using SWT as your GUI library of choice (i.e. depending on
>>the SWT dll and jar file being present) would put your module in case B,
>>an "addition" to the "Program" (SWT), which is (i) a separate module of
>>software distributed in conjunction with the Program under its own license
>>agreement, and (ii) not a derivative work of the Program. Or am I missing
>>something?
>>
>>M.
>>
>>Mike Milinkovich wrote:
>>
>>>Bear,
>>>
>>>These are answered in the EPL FAQ at
>>>http://www.eclipse.org/legal/eplfaq.html
>>>
>>>1. Yes, sees answers #15 and 16
>>>2. Probably not. See answer #14
>>>3. Yes, see answers #15 and 17
>>>
>>>Hope this helps.
>>>
>>>/mike
>>>
>>>
>>>"Bear" <ufel2522@giga.net.tw> wrote in message
>>>news:ct5hvi$8j5$1@www.eclipse.org...
>>>
>>>
>>>>I look for many CPL related articles, but i still have some questions.
>>>>
>>>>1. If i use SWT library (without any modification) to write a program, do
>>>>i need to public my source code?
>>>>
>>>>2. This program can incoporate with any other license? for example, if i
>>>>write a program using SWT as GUI framework (CPL), A framework (BSD
>>>>license) and B framework (LGPL), is it legal?
>>>>
>>>>3. This program can be a commercial product?
>>>>
>>>>Thanks for your help! :)
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
Re: About SWT and CPL (or EPL) [message #14974 is a reply to message #13970] Wed, 16 February 2005 17:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eclipse User
Originally posted by: bob.objfac.com

Mark Melvin wrote:
> Although if he was recompiling SWT (even with no changes) and re-selling
> it as a commercial product...then I think the answer would be "yes".

Why do you think so? How does recompiling change the picture?

Bob Foster

> Although he may have trouble selling it... ;o)
>
> M.
>
> Mike Milinkovich wrote:
>
>> Duh. Sorry. I meant to say "no". I really did, honest :o)
>>
>> "Mark Melvin" <mark.melvin@dspfactory.com> wrote in message
>> news:ct97dh$23n$1@www.eclipse.org...
>>
>>> I think the answer to #1 is No. If he is using an unmodified
>>> EPL-based "Program" (SWT), he doesn't have to include source for
>>> *his* Program (module) that is added to it. At least that is how I
>>> read the EPL v1.0 and FAQ answer #21... The EPL states that a
>>> "Contribution" is:
>>>
>>> a) in the case of the initial Contributor, the initial code and
>>> documentation distributed under this Agreement, and
>>> b) in the case of each subsequent Contributor:
>>>
>>> i) changes to the Program, and
>>>
>>> ii) additions to the Program;
>>>
>>> where such changes and/or additions to the Program originate from and
>>> are distributed by that particular Contributor. A Contribution
>>> 'originates' from a Contributor if it was added to the Program by
>>> such Contributor itself or anyone acting on such Contributor's
>>> behalf. Contributions do not include additions to the Program which:
>>> (i) are separate modules of software distributed in conjunction with
>>> the Program under their own license agreement, and (ii) are not
>>> derivative works of the Program.
>>>
>>> I'm assuming using SWT as your GUI library of choice (i.e. depending
>>> on the SWT dll and jar file being present) would put your module in
>>> case B, an "addition" to the "Program" (SWT), which is (i) a separate
>>> module of software distributed in conjunction with the Program under
>>> its own license agreement, and (ii) not a derivative work of the
>>> Program. Or am I missing something?
>>>
>>> M.
>>>
>>> Mike Milinkovich wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bear,
>>>>
>>>> These are answered in the EPL FAQ at
>>>> http://www.eclipse.org/legal/eplfaq.html
>>>>
>>>> 1. Yes, sees answers #15 and 16
>>>> 2. Probably not. See answer #14
>>>> 3. Yes, see answers #15 and 17
>>>>
>>>> Hope this helps.
>>>>
>>>> /mike
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Bear" <ufel2522@giga.net.tw> wrote in message
>>>> news:ct5hvi$8j5$1@www.eclipse.org...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I look for many CPL related articles, but i still have some questions.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. If i use SWT library (without any modification) to write a
>>>>> program, do i need to public my source code?
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. This program can incoporate with any other license? for example,
>>>>> if i write a program using SWT as GUI framework (CPL), A framework
>>>>> (BSD license) and B framework (LGPL), is it legal?
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. This program can be a commercial product?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for your help! :)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
Re: About SWT and CPL (or EPL) [message #14978 is a reply to message #14974] Wed, 16 February 2005 18:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eclipse User
Originally posted by: mark.melvin.dspfactory.com

Bob Foster wrote:
> Mark Melvin wrote:
>
>> Although if he was recompiling SWT (even with no changes) and
>> re-selling it as a commercial product...then I think the answer would
>> be "yes".
>
>
> Why do you think so? How does recompiling change the picture?
>
> Bob Foster
>

Hi Bob,

The way I read it, recompiling and re-distributing EPL'd source (even
unchanged) is *clearly* covered by FAQ's 15 and 16:

#15 Can I take a Program licensed under the EPL, compile it without
modification, and commercially license the result?
Yes. You may compile a Program licensed under the EPL without
modification and commercially license the result in accordance with the
terms of the EPL.

#16 Do I need to include the source code for such Program with the
object code distribution?
No. But you do need to include a statement that the source code is
available from you and information on how to obtain it.

Note the "in accordance with the terms of the EPL" in #15. I would
think recompiling something like SWT with no changes and trying to sell
it would definitely be seen as a "derivative work". ;o)

The context of this was the OP wanted to simply distribute a "program"
that depended on SWT (which I do not believe he/she was recompiling). I
think if you *need* to compile an EPL'd program from source as a
fundamental step in building/distributing your "Program", you are
definitely approaching the area of "derivative work". Including an
EPL'd binary as a dependency is different.

As far as I can tell, the act of re-compiling makes the whole derivative
work a gray area. I'm sure there are arguments either way - but if you
don't *have* to recompile SWT, and can simply include an EPL'd binary,
why bother to muddy the waters?

At least that is how I see/read it.
Mark.

>> Although he may have trouble selling it... ;o)
>>
>> M.
>>
>> Mike Milinkovich wrote:
>>
>>> Duh. Sorry. I meant to say "no". I really did, honest :o)
>>>
>>> "Mark Melvin" <mark.melvin@dspfactory.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ct97dh$23n$1@www.eclipse.org...
>>>
>>>> I think the answer to #1 is No. If he is using an unmodified
>>>> EPL-based "Program" (SWT), he doesn't have to include source for
>>>> *his* Program (module) that is added to it. At least that is how I
>>>> read the EPL v1.0 and FAQ answer #21... The EPL states that a
>>>> "Contribution" is:
>>>>
>>>> a) in the case of the initial Contributor, the initial code and
>>>> documentation distributed under this Agreement, and
>>>> b) in the case of each subsequent Contributor:
>>>>
>>>> i) changes to the Program, and
>>>>
>>>> ii) additions to the Program;
>>>>
>>>> where such changes and/or additions to the Program originate from
>>>> and are distributed by that particular Contributor. A Contribution
>>>> 'originates' from a Contributor if it was added to the Program by
>>>> such Contributor itself or anyone acting on such Contributor's
>>>> behalf. Contributions do not include additions to the Program which:
>>>> (i) are separate modules of software distributed in conjunction with
>>>> the Program under their own license agreement, and (ii) are not
>>>> derivative works of the Program.
>>>>
>>>> I'm assuming using SWT as your GUI library of choice (i.e. depending
>>>> on the SWT dll and jar file being present) would put your module in
>>>> case B, an "addition" to the "Program" (SWT), which is (i) a
>>>> separate module of software distributed in conjunction with the
>>>> Program under its own license agreement, and (ii) not a derivative
>>>> work of the Program. Or am I missing something?
>>>>
>>>> M.
>>>>
>>>> Mike Milinkovich wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bear,
>>>>>
>>>>> These are answered in the EPL FAQ at
>>>>> http://www.eclipse.org/legal/eplfaq.html
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Yes, sees answers #15 and 16
>>>>> 2. Probably not. See answer #14
>>>>> 3. Yes, see answers #15 and 17
>>>>>
>>>>> Hope this helps.
>>>>>
>>>>> /mike
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Bear" <ufel2522@giga.net.tw> wrote in message
>>>>> news:ct5hvi$8j5$1@www.eclipse.org...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I look for many CPL related articles, but i still have some
>>>>>> questions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. If i use SWT library (without any modification) to write a
>>>>>> program, do i need to public my source code?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. This program can incoporate with any other license? for
>>>>>> example, if i write a program using SWT as GUI framework (CPL), A
>>>>>> framework (BSD license) and B framework (LGPL), is it legal?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3. This program can be a commercial product?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for your help! :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
Re: About SWT and CPL (or EPL) [message #14981 is a reply to message #14978] Wed, 16 February 2005 20:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eclipse User
Originally posted by: bob.objfac.com

I'm pretty sure you're wrong on this point and I don't see the waters as
muddy. The fact that you compile the SWT doesn't modify the SWT or your
use of it.

Now, if you ran a text processor over the SWT source and selectively
modified it and linked to the result, the modified version of the SWT
would definitely be a derived work. Your use of it wouldn't.

Bob Foster

Mark Melvin wrote:
> Bob Foster wrote:
>
>> Mark Melvin wrote:
>>
>>> Although if he was recompiling SWT (even with no changes) and
>>> re-selling it as a commercial product...then I think the answer would
>>> be "yes".
>>
>>
>>
>> Why do you think so? How does recompiling change the picture?
>>
>> Bob Foster
>>
>
> Hi Bob,
>
> The way I read it, recompiling and re-distributing EPL'd source (even
> unchanged) is *clearly* covered by FAQ's 15 and 16:
>
> #15 Can I take a Program licensed under the EPL, compile it without
> modification, and commercially license the result?
> Yes. You may compile a Program licensed under the EPL without
> modification and commercially license the result in accordance with the
> terms of the EPL.
>
> #16 Do I need to include the source code for such Program with the
> object code distribution?
> No. But you do need to include a statement that the source code is
> available from you and information on how to obtain it.
>
> Note the "in accordance with the terms of the EPL" in #15. I would
> think recompiling something like SWT with no changes and trying to sell
> it would definitely be seen as a "derivative work". ;o)
>
> The context of this was the OP wanted to simply distribute a "program"
> that depended on SWT (which I do not believe he/she was recompiling). I
> think if you *need* to compile an EPL'd program from source as a
> fundamental step in building/distributing your "Program", you are
> definitely approaching the area of "derivative work". Including an
> EPL'd binary as a dependency is different.
>
> As far as I can tell, the act of re-compiling makes the whole derivative
> work a gray area. I'm sure there are arguments either way - but if you
> don't *have* to recompile SWT, and can simply include an EPL'd binary,
> why bother to muddy the waters?
>
> At least that is how I see/read it.
> Mark.
>
>>> Although he may have trouble selling it... ;o)
>>>
>>> M.
>>>
>>> Mike Milinkovich wrote:
>>>
>>>> Duh. Sorry. I meant to say "no". I really did, honest :o)
>>>>
>>>> "Mark Melvin" <mark.melvin@dspfactory.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:ct97dh$23n$1@www.eclipse.org...
>>>>
>>>>> I think the answer to #1 is No. If he is using an unmodified
>>>>> EPL-based "Program" (SWT), he doesn't have to include source for
>>>>> *his* Program (module) that is added to it. At least that is how I
>>>>> read the EPL v1.0 and FAQ answer #21... The EPL states that a
>>>>> "Contribution" is:
>>>>>
>>>>> a) in the case of the initial Contributor, the initial code and
>>>>> documentation distributed under this Agreement, and
>>>>> b) in the case of each subsequent Contributor:
>>>>>
>>>>> i) changes to the Program, and
>>>>>
>>>>> ii) additions to the Program;
>>>>>
>>>>> where such changes and/or additions to the Program originate from
>>>>> and are distributed by that particular Contributor. A Contribution
>>>>> 'originates' from a Contributor if it was added to the Program by
>>>>> such Contributor itself or anyone acting on such Contributor's
>>>>> behalf. Contributions do not include additions to the Program
>>>>> which: (i) are separate modules of software distributed in
>>>>> conjunction with the Program under their own license agreement, and
>>>>> (ii) are not derivative works of the Program.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm assuming using SWT as your GUI library of choice (i.e.
>>>>> depending on the SWT dll and jar file being present) would put your
>>>>> module in case B, an "addition" to the "Program" (SWT), which is
>>>>> (i) a separate module of software distributed in conjunction with
>>>>> the Program under its own license agreement, and (ii) not a
>>>>> derivative work of the Program. Or am I missing something?
>>>>>
>>>>> M.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike Milinkovich wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bear,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> These are answered in the EPL FAQ at
>>>>>> http://www.eclipse.org/legal/eplfaq.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. Yes, sees answers #15 and 16
>>>>>> 2. Probably not. See answer #14
>>>>>> 3. Yes, see answers #15 and 17
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hope this helps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /mike
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Bear" <ufel2522@giga.net.tw> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:ct5hvi$8j5$1@www.eclipse.org...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I look for many CPL related articles, but i still have some
>>>>>>> questions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. If i use SWT library (without any modification) to write a
>>>>>>> program, do i need to public my source code?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. This program can incoporate with any other license? for
>>>>>>> example, if i write a program using SWT as GUI framework (CPL), A
>>>>>>> framework (BSD license) and B framework (LGPL), is it legal?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3. This program can be a commercial product?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for your help! :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
Re: About SWT and CPL (or EPL) [message #14984 is a reply to message #14981] Wed, 16 February 2005 20:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eclipse User
Originally posted by: mark.melvin.dspfactory.com

I think we are talking about 2 different things here, as this has
deviated from the context of my original post. And I admit I confused
the issue with my last post...I wasn't really paying attention. ;o)
Forget about "re-compiling". That was in response to the wording of the
FAQ and Mike Milinkovich's original response, and is no longer
applicable to the context of this debate. And my last post was
disorganized nonsense... ;o)

I agree with you that if you are simply recompiling you haven't modified
the source, but you are still dealing with EPL'd code. So - if you were
to re-sell SWT (recompiled or not), it doesn't change the end result -
FAQ 15 and 16 state that you must then provide a means to get the
source. Actually I was never debating this point, I was just attempting
to show the other side of the coin where if the OP was commercially
redistributing an EPL'd program such as SWT (even with no changes)
he/she would be required to provide access to the source... for SWT.
But that does not mean commercially distributing a Program that uses SWT
and is not a derivative work means you also have to provide source for
your Program.

What exactly are you trying to say? If you are saying that if you
recompile SWT with no changes and distribute it as part of a bigger
Program, you do *not* have to provide source to your "Program", then I
agree with you. But you *do* have to provide a means to obtain the
source for SWT.

Mark.


Bob Foster wrote:

> I'm pretty sure you're wrong on this point and I don't see the waters as
> muddy. The fact that you compile the SWT doesn't modify the SWT or your
> use of it.
>
> Now, if you ran a text processor over the SWT source and selectively
> modified it and linked to the result, the modified version of the SWT
> would definitely be a derived work. Your use of it wouldn't.
>
> Bob Foster
>
> Mark Melvin wrote:
>
>> Bob Foster wrote:
>>
>>> Mark Melvin wrote:
>>>
>>>> Although if he was recompiling SWT (even with no changes) and
>>>> re-selling it as a commercial product...then I think the answer
>>>> would be "yes".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Why do you think so? How does recompiling change the picture?
>>>
>>> Bob Foster
>>>
>>
>> Hi Bob,
>>
>> The way I read it, recompiling and re-distributing EPL'd source (even
>> unchanged) is *clearly* covered by FAQ's 15 and 16:
>>
>> #15 Can I take a Program licensed under the EPL, compile it without
>> modification, and commercially license the result?
>> Yes. You may compile a Program licensed under the EPL without
>> modification and commercially license the result in accordance with
>> the terms of the EPL.
>>
>> #16 Do I need to include the source code for such Program with the
>> object code distribution?
>> No. But you do need to include a statement that the source code is
>> available from you and information on how to obtain it.
>>
>> Note the "in accordance with the terms of the EPL" in #15. I would
>> think recompiling something like SWT with no changes and trying to
>> sell it would definitely be seen as a "derivative work". ;o)
>>
>> The context of this was the OP wanted to simply distribute a "program"
>> that depended on SWT (which I do not believe he/she was recompiling).
>> I think if you *need* to compile an EPL'd program from source as a
>> fundamental step in building/distributing your "Program", you are
>> definitely approaching the area of "derivative work". Including an
>> EPL'd binary as a dependency is different.
>>
>> As far as I can tell, the act of re-compiling makes the whole
>> derivative work a gray area. I'm sure there are arguments either way
>> - but if you don't *have* to recompile SWT, and can simply include an
>> EPL'd binary, why bother to muddy the waters?
>>
>> At least that is how I see/read it.
>> Mark.
>>
>>>> Although he may have trouble selling it... ;o)
>>>>
>>>> M.
>>>>
>>>> Mike Milinkovich wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Duh. Sorry. I meant to say "no". I really did, honest :o)
>>>>>
>>>>> "Mark Melvin" <mark.melvin@dspfactory.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:ct97dh$23n$1@www.eclipse.org...
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the answer to #1 is No. If he is using an unmodified
>>>>>> EPL-based "Program" (SWT), he doesn't have to include source for
>>>>>> *his* Program (module) that is added to it. At least that is how
>>>>>> I read the EPL v1.0 and FAQ answer #21... The EPL states that a
>>>>>> "Contribution" is:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> a) in the case of the initial Contributor, the initial code and
>>>>>> documentation distributed under this Agreement, and
>>>>>> b) in the case of each subsequent Contributor:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> i) changes to the Program, and
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ii) additions to the Program;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> where such changes and/or additions to the Program originate from
>>>>>> and are distributed by that particular Contributor. A Contribution
>>>>>> 'originates' from a Contributor if it was added to the Program by
>>>>>> such Contributor itself or anyone acting on such Contributor's
>>>>>> behalf. Contributions do not include additions to the Program
>>>>>> which: (i) are separate modules of software distributed in
>>>>>> conjunction with the Program under their own license agreement,
>>>>>> and (ii) are not derivative works of the Program.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm assuming using SWT as your GUI library of choice (i.e.
>>>>>> depending on the SWT dll and jar file being present) would put
>>>>>> your module in case B, an "addition" to the "Program" (SWT), which
>>>>>> is (i) a separate module of software distributed in conjunction
>>>>>> with the Program under its own license agreement, and (ii) not a
>>>>>> derivative work of the Program. Or am I missing something?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> M.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike Milinkovich wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bear,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> These are answered in the EPL FAQ at
>>>>>>> http://www.eclipse.org/legal/eplfaq.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. Yes, sees answers #15 and 16
>>>>>>> 2. Probably not. See answer #14
>>>>>>> 3. Yes, see answers #15 and 17
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hope this helps.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /mike
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Bear" <ufel2522@giga.net.tw> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:ct5hvi$8j5$1@www.eclipse.org...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I look for many CPL related articles, but i still have some
>>>>>>>> questions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. If i use SWT library (without any modification) to write a
>>>>>>>> program, do i need to public my source code?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2. This program can incoporate with any other license? for
>>>>>>>> example, if i write a program using SWT as GUI framework (CPL),
>>>>>>>> A framework (BSD license) and B framework (LGPL), is it legal?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 3. This program can be a commercial product?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks for your help! :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
Re: About SWT and CPL (or EPL) [message #15108 is a reply to message #13737] Thu, 17 February 2005 02:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eclipse User
Originally posted by: Lamont_Gilbert.rigidsoftware.com

Bear wrote:
> I look for many CPL related articles, but i still have some questions.
>
> 1. If i use SWT library (without any modification) to write a program,
> do i need to public my source code?
>
> 2. This program can incoporate with any other license? for example, if i
> write a program using SWT as GUI framework (CPL), A framework (BSD
> license) and B framework (LGPL), is it legal?
>
> 3. This program can be a commercial product?
>
> Thanks for your help! :)
>


The honest answer is this is not defined. The EPL/CPL does not define
in the proper legal language how code can be used, and thus you do not
have a proper license to know...

Once we get that definition of 'derivative work' we will be ok. Until
then, the jury is out so to speak.


CL
Re: About SWT and CPL (or EPL) [message #15147 is a reply to message #14984] Thu, 17 February 2005 06:21 Go to previous message
Eclipse User
Originally posted by: bob.objfac.com

Sounds like a simple misunderstanding, then. You do have to provide
source for SWT. You don't for the program that uses it (which is not the
"Program" referred to in the license). So we agree.

Bob Foster

Mark Melvin wrote:
> I think we are talking about 2 different things here, as this has
> deviated from the context of my original post. And I admit I confused
> the issue with my last post...I wasn't really paying attention. ;o)
> Forget about "re-compiling". That was in response to the wording of the
> FAQ and Mike Milinkovich's original response, and is no longer
> applicable to the context of this debate. And my last post was
> disorganized nonsense... ;o)
>
> I agree with you that if you are simply recompiling you haven't modified
> the source, but you are still dealing with EPL'd code. So - if you were
> to re-sell SWT (recompiled or not), it doesn't change the end result -
> FAQ 15 and 16 state that you must then provide a means to get the
> source. Actually I was never debating this point, I was just attempting
> to show the other side of the coin where if the OP was commercially
> redistributing an EPL'd program such as SWT (even with no changes)
> he/she would be required to provide access to the source... for SWT. But
> that does not mean commercially distributing a Program that uses SWT and
> is not a derivative work means you also have to provide source for your
> Program.
>
> What exactly are you trying to say? If you are saying that if you
> recompile SWT with no changes and distribute it as part of a bigger
> Program, you do *not* have to provide source to your "Program", then I
> agree with you. But you *do* have to provide a means to obtain the
> source for SWT.
>
> Mark.
>
>
> Bob Foster wrote:
>
>> I'm pretty sure you're wrong on this point and I don't see the waters
>> as muddy. The fact that you compile the SWT doesn't modify the SWT or
>> your use of it.
>>
>> Now, if you ran a text processor over the SWT source and selectively
>> modified it and linked to the result, the modified version of the SWT
>> would definitely be a derived work. Your use of it wouldn't.
>>
>> Bob Foster
>>
>> Mark Melvin wrote:
>>
>>> Bob Foster wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mark Melvin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Although if he was recompiling SWT (even with no changes) and
>>>>> re-selling it as a commercial product...then I think the answer
>>>>> would be "yes".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why do you think so? How does recompiling change the picture?
>>>>
>>>> Bob Foster
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Bob,
>>>
>>> The way I read it, recompiling and re-distributing EPL'd source (even
>>> unchanged) is *clearly* covered by FAQ's 15 and 16:
>>>
>>> #15 Can I take a Program licensed under the EPL, compile it without
>>> modification, and commercially license the result?
>>> Yes. You may compile a Program licensed under the EPL without
>>> modification and commercially license the result in accordance with
>>> the terms of the EPL.
>>>
>>> #16 Do I need to include the source code for such Program with the
>>> object code distribution?
>>> No. But you do need to include a statement that the source code is
>>> available from you and information on how to obtain it.
>>>
>>> Note the "in accordance with the terms of the EPL" in #15. I would
>>> think recompiling something like SWT with no changes and trying to
>>> sell it would definitely be seen as a "derivative work". ;o)
>>>
>>> The context of this was the OP wanted to simply distribute a
>>> "program" that depended on SWT (which I do not believe he/she was
>>> recompiling). I think if you *need* to compile an EPL'd program from
>>> source as a fundamental step in building/distributing your "Program",
>>> you are definitely approaching the area of "derivative work".
>>> Including an EPL'd binary as a dependency is different.
>>>
>>> As far as I can tell, the act of re-compiling makes the whole
>>> derivative work a gray area. I'm sure there are arguments either way
>>> - but if you don't *have* to recompile SWT, and can simply include an
>>> EPL'd binary, why bother to muddy the waters?
>>>
>>> At least that is how I see/read it.
>>> Mark.
>>>
>>>>> Although he may have trouble selling it... ;o)
>>>>>
>>>>> M.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike Milinkovich wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Duh. Sorry. I meant to say "no". I really did, honest :o)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Mark Melvin" <mark.melvin@dspfactory.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:ct97dh$23n$1@www.eclipse.org...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think the answer to #1 is No. If he is using an unmodified
>>>>>>> EPL-based "Program" (SWT), he doesn't have to include source for
>>>>>>> *his* Program (module) that is added to it. At least that is how
>>>>>>> I read the EPL v1.0 and FAQ answer #21... The EPL states that a
>>>>>>> "Contribution" is:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> a) in the case of the initial Contributor, the initial code and
>>>>>>> documentation distributed under this Agreement, and
>>>>>>> b) in the case of each subsequent Contributor:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> i) changes to the Program, and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ii) additions to the Program;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> where such changes and/or additions to the Program originate from
>>>>>>> and are distributed by that particular Contributor. A
>>>>>>> Contribution 'originates' from a Contributor if it was added to
>>>>>>> the Program by such Contributor itself or anyone acting on such
>>>>>>> Contributor's behalf. Contributions do not include additions to
>>>>>>> the Program which: (i) are separate modules of software
>>>>>>> distributed in conjunction with the Program under their own
>>>>>>> license agreement, and (ii) are not derivative works of the Program.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm assuming using SWT as your GUI library of choice (i.e.
>>>>>>> depending on the SWT dll and jar file being present) would put
>>>>>>> your module in case B, an "addition" to the "Program" (SWT),
>>>>>>> which is (i) a separate module of software distributed in
>>>>>>> conjunction with the Program under its own license agreement, and
>>>>>>> (ii) not a derivative work of the Program. Or am I missing
>>>>>>> something?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> M.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mike Milinkovich wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bear,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> These are answered in the EPL FAQ at
>>>>>>>> http://www.eclipse.org/legal/eplfaq.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. Yes, sees answers #15 and 16
>>>>>>>> 2. Probably not. See answer #14
>>>>>>>> 3. Yes, see answers #15 and 17
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hope this helps.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> /mike
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Bear" <ufel2522@giga.net.tw> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:ct5hvi$8j5$1@www.eclipse.org...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I look for many CPL related articles, but i still have some
>>>>>>>>> questions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1. If i use SWT library (without any modification) to write a
>>>>>>>>> program, do i need to public my source code?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2. This program can incoporate with any other license? for
>>>>>>>>> example, if i write a program using SWT as GUI framework (CPL),
>>>>>>>>> A framework (BSD license) and B framework (LGPL), is it legal?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 3. This program can be a commercial product?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your help! :)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
Previous Topic:[LICENSE] - Clarify EPL Licensing Terms 'human readable'
Next Topic:Project Declaration: Eclipse Data Tools Project
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Fri Sep 19 08:04:14 GMT 2014

Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.02536 seconds
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

Powered by: FUDforum 3.0.2.
Copyright ©2001-2010 FUDforum Bulletin Board Software