Re: RFS: eclipse-eclox (new package)
On 2013-06-26 17:12, Graham Inggs wrote:
> [...]
> Hi Niels
>
> Thanks for your response.
>
> I will try to find out more about this.
>
> To start with though, here are excerpts from section 27 and 32 of the
> EPL FAQ [1]:
>
> * If you have made a copy of existing Eclipse code and made a few minor
> revisions to it, that is a derivative work. If you've written your own
> Eclipse plug-in with 100% your own code to implement functionality not
> currently in Eclipse, then it is not a derivative work.
>
> * The EPL and the GPL are not compatible in any combination where the
> result would be considered either: (a) a "derivative work" (which
> Eclipse interprets consistent with the definition of that term in the
> U.S. Copyright Act ) or (b) a work "based on" the GPL code, as that
> phrase is used in the GPLv2, GPLv3 or the GPL FAQ as applicable.
>
> So I don't think Eclox would be considered (a) a derivative work, but I
> am not sure what they mean by (b).
> I believe Fedora have packaged Eclox, I wonder if they considered this?
>
> Regards
> Graham
>
> [1] http://www.eclipse.org/legal/eplfaq.php
>
I always considered the two licenses for completely incompatiable, but
it is possible that interpretation have been too zealous. But IANAL.
~Niels
Reply to: