[Savannah-hackers] Re: address@hidden: Re: [gnu.org #215181] GNU GPL plug-in for Eclipse]

[address@hidden via RT]

On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 00:29, address@hidden via RT wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-11-24 at 18:49 -0500, address@hidden via RT
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2004-11-24 at 07:50, Sylvain Beucler wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > > 
> > > Soon after I approved your project, I was hit by a doubt regarding the
> > > Eclipse licensing issue.
> > > 
> > > Unfortunately, the Eclipse Public License does not allow to write
> > > GPL'd plugins. See the following mail from address@hidden
> > > 
> > > Until this issue is fixed, you have several choices:
> > > 
> > > - release the plugin under a license compatible with both the GNU GPL
> > >   and the EPL (such as Expat or mBSD); in this case, please submit a
> > >   distinct project at Savannah to make the license change clear.
> > > 
> > > - release the plugin under the EPL; in this case, as the license is
> > >   incompatible with the GNU GPL, the project could not be hosted at
> > >   Savannah.
> > > 
> > > So in all cases, the eclipse plug-in cannot be added to the cashew-s
> > > project for now.
> > > 
> > > Please let me know your decision.
> > > 
> > > Apologize for the inconvenience, I should have spotted this during the
> > > registration process.
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > Sylvain
> > > 
> > > ----- Forwarded message from "address@hidden via RT" <address@hidden> 
> > > -----
> > > 
> > > Subject: Re: [gnu.org #215181] GNU GPL plug-in for Eclipse
> > > From: "address@hidden via RT" <address@hidden>
> > > To: address@hidden
> > > Cc: address@hidden,address@hidden
> > > Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 19:27:32 -0500
> > > 
> > > On Sun, 2004-11-21 at 08:20 -0500, Sylvain Beucler via RT wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > > 
> > > > I recently approved this project:
> > > > https://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/cashew-s
> > > > 
> > > > I told the user it was possible to write a plug-in for Eclipse (under
> > > > the Eclipse Public License) and release it under the GNU GPL using an
> > > > exception as described at
> > > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF
> > > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs
> > > > 
> > > > My approval is here:
> > > > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/savannah-hackers/2004-11/msg00550.html
> > > > 
> > > > However, I now wonder whether such linking is possible.
> > > > 
> > > > Let's consider an hypothetical license "anti-GPL" that permits any
> > > > kind of use except combinaison with GNU GPL'd program. If I release a
> > > > GPL'd plug-in for a piece of software released under the anti-GPL,
> > > > adding an exception to my plug-in will not be enough to combine the
> > > > two programs.
> > > > 
> > > > So my questions are:
> > > > - Is using an exception enough to combine any GPL-incompatible
> > > >   software with GPL'd software?
> > > > - If not, is it possible to release an GPL'd plug-in for Eclipse?
> > > 
> > > The Eclipse people don't believe that plug-ins are derivative works of
> > > the main program.  We do.  So, they think they permit this, and we think
> > > they don't.  To make this clear, I'm talking to them about getting an
> > > explicit exception in place to allow this.   
> > > 
> > > Until then, we think such linking violates their license.
> > 
> > Hi Sylvain,
> >     Thanks for making us aware of this issue.  As you can understand, this
> > has been a cause for considerable concern amongst the members of our
> > project.  Would it be possible for yourself or licensing to give us a
> > brief overview of the pros and cons of switching to either license, as
> > regards the wider reaching effects to our code (not just as relates to
> > Savannah).
> >     As we see it at present, the mBSD license, while allowing the editor
> > side of the project to stay on Savannah, is too permissive.  From what I
> > gather from the FSF pages, the EPL is a more restrictive license, but
> > incompatible with the GPL due to the patent clauses.  Our preference
> > would be for something which most closely follows the terms of the GPL
> > and the notion of copy-left, while still being able to be linked against
> > Eclipse.  I gather from your mail above, that the mBSD and Expat/MIT are
> > the only GPL-compatible licenses that will link with Eclipse -- is this
> > correct?
> 
> The LGPL will (although note that this compatibility doesn't work when
> linked to Eclipse).
> 
So, it looks like the LGPL is out too, in that case, as the project is
an Eclipse plug-in.  What are the differences between our current
license (the GPL) and the Eclipse license, and what would we lose by
having to make the move to EPL?

> >     We would be very grateful if you could offer any advice you have to us
> > on a license that will best fit our concerns.  Also, what are the
> > chances of GPLed Eclipse plug-ins becoming a possibility, and would it
> > be possible for the editor to be re-appropriated by Savannah, under the
> > GPL, if this occurs?
> 
> Pure-GPL Eclipse plug-ins are unlikely to be possible, at least until
> GPLv3 is released and maybe beyond.  GPL + exception plug-ins may end up
> being possible.

So, presumably, we could move to GPL+exception if this becomes an option
in the future (provided all contributors agree)?

Thanks, yet again, for your help,
-- 
Andrew :-)

Please avoid sending me Microsoft Office (e.g. Word, PowerPoint) attachments.
See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html

No software patents in Europe -- http://nosoftwarepatents.com

"Value your freedom, or you will lose it, teaches history.
`Don't bother us with politics' respond those who don't want to learn."
-- Richard Stallman

"We've all been part of the biggest beta test the world has ever known --
Windows"
-- Victor Wheatman, Gartner

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature