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

[address@hidden via RT]

On Wed, 2004-11-24 at 20:34 -0500, address@hidden via RT
wrote:
> 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?

The major difference is the patent language in the EPL.  We don't
necessarily think it's a bad idea, but it's not compatible with the
current GPL.

I suppose you could dual-license: GPL + EPL.  It wouldn't allow GPL code
to be linked in when your code was linked with Eclipse, but it would
allow portions of your code to be transplanted into other software.

> > >   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)?

Yes.

-- 
-Dave Turner
GPL Compliance Engineer
Support my work: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=novalis&p=FSF