4 ms·

Congrats to author! Just a small addendum: I'm not a lawyer, but I'd advise author to check licenses. GPL3 project license and EPL license of libs used as depen

by dig1 8y ago

Congrats to author! Just a small addendum: I'm not a lawyer, but I'd advise author to check licenses. GPL3 project license and EPL license of libs used as dependencies aren't compatible. There was a bit discussion about this and, if I got it correct, Clojure project could be licensed under GPL only when there aren't EPL licensed dependencies.

bachmeier 8y ago
I don't see how there could be a problem unless the author is distributing a binary. If you give someone GPL code, they can do anything they want with it, as long as it's for their own use. It could potentially cause problems for other people that want to mix the two in improper ways for purposes of distribution, but that's not the author's problem.
- lemming 8y ago
  https://www.eclipse.org/legal/eplfaq.php#GPLCOMPATIBLE https://www.eclipse.org/legal/eplfaq.php#GPLCOMPATIBLE Based upon the position of the Free Software Foundation, you may not combine EPL 1.0 and GPL code in any scenario where linking exists between code made available under those licenses. The above applies to both GPL version 2 and GPL version 3. Since Clojure itself and its core library are EPL, this means you basically cannot write GPL code with Clojure.
  - bachmeier 8y ago
    There are no restrictions on what you do with GPL software if you're not distributing it. Here's what the FSF has to say[1]: "If I only make copies of a GPL-covered program and run them, without distributing or conveying them to others, what does the license require of me? (#NoDistributionRequirements) Nothing. The GPL does not place any conditions on this activity." The whole point of the GPL is to guarantee that the user can do anything they want with the software. The only limitations on GPL software are with respect to distribution.
    - fulafel 8y ago
      So is the Eclipse FAQ wrong, or does the EPL forbid this private use of EPL'd code in a non-distribution scenario? It sounds to me like the FAQ is wrong, since it quotes the FSF's position as the foundation of its argument. edit: apparently a twist is that GPL is considered a pure copyright license, and so covers only distribution, but the EPL is broader. It starts with "ANY USE, REPRODUCTION OR DISTRIBUTION OF THE PROGRAM CONSTITUTES RECIPIENT'S ACCEPTANCE OF THIS AGREEMENT". So apparently this makes it a kind of contract and not just a copyright licese.
dkersten 8y ago
There was some discussion on this https://github.com/littleredcomputer/sicmutils/issues/31 https://github.com/littleredcomputer/sicmutils/issues/31
- ilikehurdles 8y ago
  I think it still needs a clause excluding EPL dependencies. I wish clojure didn't go the EPL route because it's a PITA to release gpl code that is compatible with it.
  - dkersten 8y ago
    If it’s source only, is it ok? Yeah, it definitely makes things harder...

by dig1 8y ago

bachmeier 8y ago

I don't see how there could be a problem unless the author is distributing a binary. If you give someone GPL code, they can do anything they want with it, as long as it's for their own use. It could potentially cause problems for other people that want to mix the two in improper ways for purposes of distribution, but that's not the author's problem.

lemming 8y ago
https://www.eclipse.org/legal/eplfaq.php#GPLCOMPATIBLE https://www.eclipse.org/legal/eplfaq.php#GPLCOMPATIBLE Based upon the position of the Free Software Foundation, you may not combine EPL 1.0 and GPL code in any scenario where linking exists between code made available under those licenses. The above applies to both GPL version 2 and GPL version 3. Since Clojure itself and its core library are EPL, this means you basically cannot write GPL code with Clojure.
- bachmeier 8y ago
  There are no restrictions on what you do with GPL software if you're not distributing it. Here's what the FSF has to say[1]: "If I only make copies of a GPL-covered program and run them, without distributing or conveying them to others, what does the license require of me? (#NoDistributionRequirements) Nothing. The GPL does not place any conditions on this activity." The whole point of the GPL is to guarantee that the user can do anything they want with the software. The only limitations on GPL software are with respect to distribution.
  - fulafel 8y ago
    So is the Eclipse FAQ wrong, or does the EPL forbid this private use of EPL'd code in a non-distribution scenario? It sounds to me like the FAQ is wrong, since it quotes the FSF's position as the foundation of its argument. edit: apparently a twist is that GPL is considered a pure copyright license, and so covers only distribution, but the EPL is broader. It starts with "ANY USE, REPRODUCTION OR DISTRIBUTION OF THE PROGRAM CONSTITUTES RECIPIENT'S ACCEPTANCE OF THIS AGREEMENT". So apparently this makes it a kind of contract and not just a copyright licese.

dkersten 8y ago

There was some discussion on this https://github.com/littleredcomputer/sicmutils/issues/31 https://github.com/littleredcomputer/sicmutils/issues/31

ilikehurdles 8y ago
I think it still needs a clause excluding EPL dependencies. I wish clojure didn't go the EPL route because it's a PITA to release gpl code that is compatible with it.
- dkersten 8y ago
  If it’s source only, is it ok? Yeah, it definitely makes things harder...