[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
Re: [theia-dev] Licensing difference
|
Hi Petar,
glad you're considering joining our community. You'll find we're a friendly bunch. Eclipse Theia is both a framework for building IDE's as well as a end-user IDE, so that can be confusing.
The
https://github.com/eclipse-theia/theia repo contains the code for the Theia framework. The artifacts produced from this repo are npm modules that you would consume as dependencies if you build a Theia-based product. The repo also contains a folder with example applications that are used for testing the framework code.
The
https://github.com/eclipse-theia/theia-blueprint repo contains artifacts for building an IDE product based on the Theia framework. It uses the npm modules from the Theia framework to build an end-user product. The artifacts produced from this repo are, for example a Windows installer or a container for running an browser version of the IDE. So if you build a Theia-based product, you would probably copy the code from this repo to serve as a base for your own product, aka use it as a blueprint.
A while back, we decided that Theia was complete enough and good enough that we could publish Theia blueprint product as a general purpose IDE for end users, so we renamed the product to "Theia IDE" to distinguish it from Theia the framework.
As far as I can remember, the licensing change for blueprint was made to make it easier for some adopters to use copied blueprint code in their own products: consuming EPL code as a dependency in a proprietary product is not a problem (disclaimer: not a lawyer), but copying EPL code from blueprint for a proprietary product was perceived as a legal hurdle by some adopters, so we changed that license to MIT.
hope that helps,
Thomas
------ Original Message ------
Date 01/08/2024 10:14:58
Subject [theia-dev] Licensing difference
Dear Theia Dev Members group,
We are evaluating the usage of Theia for custom IDE editor. I have been looking at details on the license page and there is a slight discrepancy which would appreciate
to get clarity on.
Questions:
- If the difference is in rebranding, why the two repos are still active?
- If they are synonymous, why do they have different license terms?
- Is there a more detailed view of what is the actual difference between both?
Many thanks,
Petar
This message, and any associated files, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged, subject to copyright or constitute
a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message or files associated with this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please
notify us immediately or forward this message immediately to
info@xxxxxxxxxxx...
Thank You