Home » Archived » XML Schema Definition (XSD) » CPL license
| CPL license [message #57187] |
Thu, 03 February 2005 03:57  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: l.aldred.qut.edu.au
Hi,
Is the license for XSD (the CPL) compatible with the Apache 2 license?
I am using the XSD libraries (common.jar, ecore.jar, xsd.jar,
xsd.resources.jar) in an open source project of my own and I intend to
release it under the Apache 2 license.
Can we use the XSD+EMF binaries and still release them under the Apache 2
license? Do we need a special arrangement to do this? I would be happy
to prominently acknowledge the contribution made by the XSD team on our
Website, on sourceforge, and in the downloadable code, and in the source.
Regards,
Lachlan
|
|
|
| Re: CPL license [message #57210 is a reply to message #57187] |
Thu, 03 February 2005 07:34  |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: merks.ca.ibm.com
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------050402030706000907090405
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lachlan,
I don't think this would be a problem at all. After all, IBM and others
use these same things and distribute them in products that sell for
money. I must point out though that my advice should never be
considered legal advice.
If your project would be of interest to others users of XSD/EMF, you
might want to advertise it here:
EMF Corner site <http://www.eclipse.org/emf/models/>
Lachlan Aldred wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is the license for XSD (the CPL) compatible with the Apache 2 license?
>
> I am using the XSD libraries (common.jar, ecore.jar, xsd.jar,
> xsd.resources.jar) in an open source project of my own and I intend
> to release it under the Apache 2 license.
>
> Can we use the XSD+EMF binaries and still release them under the
> Apache 2 license? Do we need a special arrangement to do this? I
> would be happy to prominently acknowledge the contribution made by the
> XSD team on our Website, on sourceforge, and in the downloadable code,
> and in the source.
>
> Regards,
>
> Lachlan
>
>
>
>
--------------050402030706000907090405
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-15"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Lachlan,<br>
<br>
I don't think this would be a problem at all.
|
|
|
| Re: CPL license [message #57236 is a reply to message #57187] |
Thu, 03 February 2005 10:29 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Lachlan Aldred wrote:
> Is the license for XSD (the CPL) compatible with the Apache 2 license?
Hi Lachlan,
I'm not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, and I'm not speaking for
IBM. I'm only offering my best guess at the answer to your question,
based on my reading of the two licenses, as an interested layman.
> I am using the XSD libraries (common.jar, ecore.jar, xsd.jar,
> xsd.resources.jar) in an open source project of my own and I intend to
> release it under the Apache 2 license.
>
> Can we use the XSD+EMF binaries and still release them under the Apache
> 2 license?
I don't believe that the CPL permits you to redistribute the EMF or XSD
source code, including any modifications you might make to it, under any
license other than the CPL.
But, I do believe it permits you to redistribute it under the CPL,
alongside your own code that you are distributing under another license,
including the Apache License, 2.0. I suspect this is your best bet.
As for binaries, you are permitted to compile CPL-licensed code and
distribute the resulting binaries under another license, including, as
Ed pointed out, a proprietary license. However, you must state that the
source code for the CPL-licensed portion is available and provide it to
your licensees on request.
One other note: we expect that EMF and XSD will transition from the CPL
to the Eclipse Public License (EPL), along with the rest of the Eclipse
project, in the near future. Obviously, existing code will continue to
be available under the terms of the CPL, and I believe that the EPL
doesn't contain anything that would change any of this answer to your
question.
Again, to restate, this isn't legal advice. Lawyers are qualified to
give legal advice; I am not. For more information, you could also
consider writing the Eclipse Management Office (license@eclipse.org)
with your question.
Here's the relevant reading...
The Apache License 2.0: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/apache2.0.php
The CPL 1.0: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cpl1.0.php
The EPL 1.0: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/eclipse-1.0.php
The CPL FAQ: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/os-cplfaq.html
The EPL FAQ: http://www.eclipse.org/legal/eplfaq.html
The CPL to EPL FAQ: http://www.eclipse.org/legal/cpl2eplfaq.html
Cheers,
Dave
|
|
|
| Re: CPL license [message #593649 is a reply to message #57187] |
Thu, 03 February 2005 07:34 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------050402030706000907090405
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lachlan,
I don't think this would be a problem at all. After all, IBM and others
use these same things and distribute them in products that sell for
money. I must point out though that my advice should never be
considered legal advice.
If your project would be of interest to others users of XSD/EMF, you
might want to advertise it here:
EMF Corner site <http://www.eclipse.org/emf/models/>
Lachlan Aldred wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is the license for XSD (the CPL) compatible with the Apache 2 license?
>
> I am using the XSD libraries (common.jar, ecore.jar, xsd.jar,
> xsd.resources.jar) in an open source project of my own and I intend
> to release it under the Apache 2 license.
>
> Can we use the XSD+EMF binaries and still release them under the
> Apache 2 license? Do we need a special arrangement to do this? I
> would be happy to prominently acknowledge the contribution made by the
> XSD team on our Website, on sourceforge, and in the downloadable code,
> and in the source.
>
> Regards,
>
> Lachlan
>
>
>
>
--------------050402030706000907090405
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-15"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Lachlan,<br>
<br>
I don't think this would be a problem at all.
|
|
|
| Re: CPL license [message #593657 is a reply to message #57187] |
Thu, 03 February 2005 10:29 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Lachlan Aldred wrote:
> Is the license for XSD (the CPL) compatible with the Apache 2 license?
Hi Lachlan,
I'm not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, and I'm not speaking for
IBM. I'm only offering my best guess at the answer to your question,
based on my reading of the two licenses, as an interested layman.
> I am using the XSD libraries (common.jar, ecore.jar, xsd.jar,
> xsd.resources.jar) in an open source project of my own and I intend to
> release it under the Apache 2 license.
>
> Can we use the XSD+EMF binaries and still release them under the Apache
> 2 license?
I don't believe that the CPL permits you to redistribute the EMF or XSD
source code, including any modifications you might make to it, under any
license other than the CPL.
But, I do believe it permits you to redistribute it under the CPL,
alongside your own code that you are distributing under another license,
including the Apache License, 2.0. I suspect this is your best bet.
As for binaries, you are permitted to compile CPL-licensed code and
distribute the resulting binaries under another license, including, as
Ed pointed out, a proprietary license. However, you must state that the
source code for the CPL-licensed portion is available and provide it to
your licensees on request.
One other note: we expect that EMF and XSD will transition from the CPL
to the Eclipse Public License (EPL), along with the rest of the Eclipse
project, in the near future. Obviously, existing code will continue to
be available under the terms of the CPL, and I believe that the EPL
doesn't contain anything that would change any of this answer to your
question.
Again, to restate, this isn't legal advice. Lawyers are qualified to
give legal advice; I am not. For more information, you could also
consider writing the Eclipse Management Office (license@eclipse.org)
with your question.
Here's the relevant reading...
The Apache License 2.0: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/apache2.0.php
The CPL 1.0: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cpl1.0.php
The EPL 1.0: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/eclipse-1.0.php
The CPL FAQ: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/os-cplfaq.html
The EPL FAQ: http://www.eclipse.org/legal/eplfaq.html
The CPL to EPL FAQ: http://www.eclipse.org/legal/cpl2eplfaq.html
Cheers,
Dave
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Wed May 28 19:36:05 EDT 2025
Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.02784 seconds |
Home