License

[Sype]

Hi,

Bliki is distributed under the Eclipse Public License. We are
currently using Bliki as per the terms of this license. However, we
are currently investigating the possibility of enforcing a GPL-
compatibility requirement on our own dependencies, to comply with
specific constraints we're trying to work with.

Without going into any debate as to which license is better than which
(that's really, really not the point of my post), could dual-licensing
be considered by the authors of Bliki? The current Eclipse Public
License could be kept of course, but a LGPL 2.1, Apache License 2.0 or
CCDL license could be added as well... That would allow anyone to
pick the license they prefer. Non-GPL products would most likely pick
EPL, while GPL products would pick the GPL-compatible license like
LGPL 2.1, Apache License 2.0 or CCDL...

Sounds possible?

Thanks a lot!


REFERENCES:
GPL compatibility comments: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html
Dual-licensing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-licensing

[Axel Kramer]

On Apr 24, 11:33 pm, Sype <j...@prologue.qc.ca> wrote:
> Hi,
...

>
> Without going into any debate as to which license is better than which
> (that's really, really not the point of my post), could dual-licensing
> be considered by the authors of Bliki?  The current Eclipse Public
> License could be kept of course, but a LGPL 2.1, Apache License 2.0 or
> CCDL license could be added as well...  That would allow anyone to
> pick the license they prefer.  Non-GPL products would most likely pick
> EPL, while GPL products would pick the GPL-compatible license like
> LGPL 2.1, Apache License 2.0 or CCDL...

I've added the LGPL license:
http://plog4u.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/plog4u/info.bliki.wiki/licenses.txt?view=markup

[Sype]

Wow, that's what I call "listening to your users"! Thanks a lot!

> I've added the LGPL license:http://plog4u.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/plog4u/info.bliki.wiki/licen...