Talk:Eclipse Public License

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

"In my opinion"[edit]

Section Later Versions specifically says "in my opinion" about something.

Fix, anyone?

Thanks. --Amir E. Aharoni 06:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

GPL compatibility[edit]

The "Compatibility with the GPL" section is written TERRIBLY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 00:41, 20 July 2006

And why is the part about "Compatibility with the GPL" almost at the top of the article? Marvi 15:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I cleaned that up, but there is still so much wrong information in this article. C.Oezbek 16:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The GPL is the main licence of the free software community, used by 50 or 75 percent of free software (depending on what way you count). Whether or not software is compatible with it is important. Gronky 11:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Possibly because the name 'Eclipse Public License' clearly suggests that the license is intended to be compared with the GPL? The two acronyms even rhyme. Compare Sun's 'CDDL'. Counterpoint: Netscape's NPL. 14:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The EPL is not compatible with the GPL as the article implies. Follow the reference for the statement (the one that says the FSF approves of the EPL.) OssDev (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. The whole article is written terribly. I suggest throwing sections 3-8 in the bin. A rephrasing of the license is not really encyclopaedic, anyway; this is not the place for legal advice, and if you want legal advice you should get your lawyer to read the actual license.
What should be present, in my opinion, is a *brief* list of important differences between the EPL and the two most common licenses (say, GPL and MIT), and then something on the license's history, any controversy it's been involved in, some notable projects or organisations that use it (Eclipse and IBM, perhaps? ;). 15:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that cherry-picking some small subset of all popular licenses to compare and contrast with the EPL is probably not the best idea. Some brief discussion of the license's copyleft status, and perhaps (by contrast) its status as a non-permissive or non-copyleft license, with specific comparison to particular licenses that are most similar to the EPL might be helpful, though. - Apotheon (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The GPLv3 similarly requires a grant of patent license, so it's possible that the EPL and the GPLv3 are compatible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Outdated compatibility information[edit]

It's clear that this was written in 2006, when version 2 was the latest version of the GPL. According to the FSF, the current version of the GPL is still incompatible with the EPL, but for a completely different reason (choice of law clause). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)