hi Ian,
On 2012-04-14 04:35 , Ian Skerrett wrote:
One of the reasons we see Paho being licensed under the BSD and
EPL is to allow integration with GPL licensed applications. We
don't typically allow for a dual license of EPL and GPL or AGPL.
The BSD license we use is the EDL http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php
Using the EDL dual-license provides the maximum interoperablity to
other license environments.
I see that the EDL v1.0 is effectively the new BSD license (aka
"revised" or "3-clause") with the organization name being the
"Eclipse Foundation, Inc". Which is a BSD license variant that is
compatible with the GPL (unlike the old BSD license).
I didn't mean to suggest that the Eclipse Foundation would
dual-license to include AGPLv3 ... but, rather I'd like to continue
to offer my code (via GitHub) with the AGPLv3 license independently
of what the Eclipse Foundation chooses to do with the code.
I
hope this would be acceptable.
I would prefer (if possible) to know ahead of time whether you will
or won't use the EDL for Paho, because Mike said "there is a
_chance_". I've read that the default for Eclipse Foundation
projects is the EPL alone ... and that using the EDL for Eclipse
Foundation projects requires the approval of the Eclipse Board of
Directors.
I've also read the Licensing Example Code policy statement that
indicates the use of EDL for example code ... "which is never part
of the project implementation technology" ...
http://mmilinkov.wordpress.com/2009/05/21/some-new-license-flexibility
http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/Licensing_Example_Code.pdf
How about we move the details of this licensing discussion "off
list" ... so that we don't bore everyone else to death.
And, then post the final outcome back "on list" ?
--
-O- cheers = /\ /\/ /) `/ =
--O -- http://www.geekscape.org --
OOO -- andyg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- http://twitter.com/geekscape --
|