Re: [epl-discuss] GPL compatibility

[Richard Fontana <fontana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

MPL has a provision specifically designed to fix the GPL
incompatibility of earlier versions. MPL, a weak copyleft license like
the EPL, has a notion of a 'Larger Work' which may be covered by
non-MPL licensing terms. In essence, MPL 2.0 says that if the Larger
Work is formed by combination of MPL code and *GPL code, you can
dual-license the MPL code under the *GPL. Since Luis appears to be on
this list he can correct that summary if I got it horribly wrong. :)

RF


On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 08:54:41AM -0500, Jesse McConnell wrote:
> Since you sound knowledgeable on the topic, could you introduce what
> is special about MPL2 that mitigates the GPL issue?
> --
> jesse mcconnell
> jesse.mcconnell@xxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 8:51 AM, Richard Fontana
> <fontana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > EPL 1.0 is assumed by both the FSF and the Eclipse Foundation to be
> > GPL-incompatible. The perception of GPL incompatibility probably plays
> > a small but not negligible role in keeping the license somewhat
> > marginalized.
> >
> > Why not use EPL 2.0 as an opportunity to address this? MPL 2.0 did so
> > and the solution used in MPL 2.0 could easily be adapted to the EPL,
> > though other approaches are also possible.
> >
> > RF
> > _______________________________________________
> > epl-discuss mailing list
> > epl-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epl-discuss
> _______________________________________________
> epl-discuss mailing list
> epl-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epl-discuss