Re: RFS: eclipse-eclox (new package)

[Graham Inggs <graham@nerve.org.za>]

On 26/06/2013 16:39, Niels Thykier wrote:
> On 2013-06-19 08:37, Graham Inggs wrote:
> > Dear Java packagers
> >
> > I'm looking for someone to review and sponsor the following package, please:
> >
> > * Package name : eclipse-eclox
> >    Version : 0.8.0
> >    Upstream Author : Guillaume Brocker <gbrocker@gna.org>
> > * URL : http://home.gna.org/eclox/
> > * License : GPL-2+
> >    Description :  simple doxygen frontend plug-in for Eclipse
> > It aims to provide a slim and sleek integration of the code
> > documentation process into eclipse by providing a high-level graphical
> > user interface over doxygen.
> >
> > I realize eclox is no longer under development, but it is fully functional
> > and relatively bug-free.
> >
> > The package source can be accessed via git:
> > http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/eclipse-eclox.git
> >
> > I would be happy to change the maintainer of the package and move the git
> > repository to pkg-java if it meets your standards.
> >
> > Regards
> > Graham
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the request.  Unfortunately, I suspect we have an issue with
> the license.
>
> It is my understanding that the GPL (license of eclipse-eclox) is not
> compatiable with the EPL (license of eclipse).  Unless there are a
> special exception allowing us to link the two together, I don't think we
> are permitted to distribute eclipse-eclox.
>
> ~Niels
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