RE: [higgins-dev] IP question

[Anthony Nadalin <drsecure@xxxxxxxxxx>]

My point being is that if we allow "required" but non distributed libraries which have non compatible IPR with distributed libraries from Eclipse we are going to create IPR issues with the consumers of Higgins. As I said IBM does not support this approach.

Anthony Nadalin | Work 512.838.0085 | Cell 512.289.4122
"Paul Trevithick" <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

"Paul Trevithick" <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

04/11/2007 04:33 PM

Please respond to
"Higgins \(Trust Framework\) Project developer discussions" <higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

To	"'Higgins \(Trust Framework\) Project developer discussions'" <higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject	RE: [higgins-dev] IP question

Hi Duane,

For libraries that we redistribute we must request Eclipse legal approval on
each and every library. The anecdotal evidence I've heard is that the closer
the license is to EPL (e.g. Apache 2.0) the more likely it is to get
approval. 

But I think your question here is more about libraries that we are not
redistributing, but nonetheless require. (Of course none of the core of
Higgins would do this, but, as has been discussed, some plugins might). I
wish I had a list. I know GPL is not compatible. I would have thought LGPL
was okay, though I did see Tony's post somewhat to the contrary.

-Paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:higgins-dev-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Duane Buss
> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 5:05 PM
> To: higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [higgins-dev] IP question
> 
> Where can I find documentation describing the EPL compatible licenses?
> 
> Duane
> _______________________________________________
> higgins-dev mailing list
> higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev

_______________________________________________
higgins-dev mailing list
higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev