Re: [DotGNU]IDE proposal - Eclipse/SharpDevelop announcement

[Seth Johnson]

I'm thinking the key is probably the funky patent clauses,
whatever they say.  What I posted was just the GNU position
on CPL.  GNU resists software patents, so my first take on
the bit I quoted is that that's what it's mostly about. 
Could be wrong.  I just had recently read that whole page of
license assessments, so I thought I could quickly provide a
canonical answer.  But GNU puts up with lots of things.  I'm
sure somebody else would be much more capable of sorting
this sort of question out.

Seth Johnson

David Sugar wrote:
> 
> How much does eclipse really differ from netbeans?  I think the latter
> is also on a strange public license of some sort.
> 
> Seth Johnson wrote:
> 
> >
> >Mike Krüger wrote:
> >
> >>I've looked at Eclipse and it falls under the CPL (Common
> >>Public License).
> >>And this is as far as I remember this is a "free" license. (correct me, if
> >>I'm wrong).
> >>
> >
> >>From http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html:
> >
> >Common Public License Version 0.5
> >This is a free software license but it is incompatible with
> >the GPL.
> >The Common Public License is incompatible with the GPL
> >because it has various specific requirements that are not in
> >the GPL.
> >
> >For example, it requires certain patent licenses be given
> >that the GPL does not require. (We don't think those patent
> >license requirements are inherently a bad idea, but
> >nonetheless they are incompatible with the GNU GPL.)