I would like to register my project with Google Code. It is licensed under the Eclipse Public License (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/eclipse-1.0.php). Please allow for new projects to select this license.
Arash Partow ________________________________________________________ Be one who knows what they don't know, Instead of being one who knows not what they don't know, Thinking they know everything about all things. http://www.partow.net
Arash Partow wrote: > It should actually be the Common Public License
> Arash Partow > ________________________________________________________ > Be one who knows what they don't know, > Instead of being one who knows not what they don't know, > Thinking they know everything about all things. > http://www.partow.net
As a reason for this request, consider that most Eclipse-based opensource projects (either using Eclipse IDE, Eclipse RCP, JFace or SWT, Eclipse Plugins) are licensed under the EPL.
Well, if you have to pick one then it should be EPL. EPL is intended as a replacement for CPL. The main difference is some better wording in the patent termination clause.
Ed Burnette wrote: > Well, if you have to pick one then it should be EPL. EPL is intended as > a replacement for CPL. The main difference is some better wording in > the patent termination clause.
Agreed. We would use the EPL if any of them. However, at this time, the Eclipse Public License has not really been adopted by the wider open source community. It is mostly being used just by one smallish corner: projects based on or around Eclipse.
As licenses are adopted outside of their original niche, we may add them to the list of allowable licenses.
We felt that the Mozilla Public License (1.1) was an acceptable license with qualities similar to the EPL. Specifically, a non-viral reciprocal license: if you make changes, then you must distribute those changes (in source form).
The EPL may be a small corner of open-source licenses, but it is mainstream to the Eclipse plug-in development camp!
I have authored and open-sourced an Eclipse plug-in that I find quite useful in my line of work, and would like it to be of use to as wide an audience as possible. It is currently hosted on SourceForge, and licensed under the EPL. This licensing ensures that my plug-in can be deployed everywhere Eclipse can. Using the MPL would force the end users of my plug-in to comply with 2 licenses instead of 1. That's a major hindrance to adoption. On a grander scale, I believe it's a major hindrance to open-source proliferation.
I understand you're going for simplicity and usability. You guys have done an incredible job. The SourceForge interface is a train wreck by comparison!
But licensing is a critical component of the open-source model, one that I'm not willing to give up. I would love to switch to Google Code Hosting, but not at the expense of my user base.
I hope you'll reconsider this decision. There are lots of licenses out there, and lots of good reasons to choose each one. Why not at least expand the selection to the OSI-approved licenses?
Personally I like Google's approach of only encouraging a few licenses. It's a bold move -- we have too many licenses! I just wish they'd allow my favorite one. :) And I'm not sure why both BSD and MIT are in the short list since they're almost the same. But anyway...
Greg & co., have you thought about allowing an "Other" license? There is some code that just *has* to be released under a license not supported explicitly by Google Code. For example, look at http://code.google.com/p/gwt-tooling/ . The original code this was forked from was EPL so it has to remain EPL. Also if this project ever wants to be an eclipse.org project, it would have to be EPL. Since EPL isn't currently a choice, the author could either not host on Google Code or do what they've done here - pick the closest license and clarify in the comments what the real license is. Do you have a better solution in mind for projects like this?
Here's an even more ambitious idea for Google - work with the free/open source community to define the equivalent of Creative Commons for software. Have some options that can be tweaked, like share-alike, attribution, etc... But make all the licenses explicitly compatible with one another by default. Replace MIT, BSD, GNU, ASF, MPL, EPL, CDDL, etc.. with something componetized and logical. Negotiate with Apache, FSF, and others to get them to say they're compatible with this "commons software" license suite. End the 50-license nightmare! One license to rule them all (http://www.eclipsezone.com/eclipse/forums/t20776.html). Just a thought...
Hi, I just participated in the Google Summer of Code '06 and developed a collaborative editor for the Eclipse Communication Framework dubbed Cola. My sourcecode is currently version controlled via CVS at the Oregon State University Open Source Lab.
Being more of a subversion fanboy, I thought about moving my code to the Google Code Hosting Service. As has already been stated in this group, the available licenses for new projects do not comply with the redistribution of sourcecode section of the Eclipse Public License (EPL), under which my code and other code my contributions rely on, have initially been released under.
I have read the code hosting FAQ and the section explaining your motivation to provide a limited set of open source licenses. Even though I am sympathetic to your opinion on the matter of "license flooding", I'd like to either see the EPL included (to solve this prevailing and very much Eclipse developer related issue) or some further reaching changes to the licensing options. The limitation to your current set of licenses does not even permit for all of the participating Summer of Code projects to be version controlled via your service.
Don't get me wrong, this is supposed to be constructive criticism, I very much like your services and would like to see my project version controlled via Google Code Hosting and utilize your issue tracker etc.
