hi Ian,
On 2012-04-14 04:35 , Ian Skerrett wrote:
One of the reasons we see Paho being licensed under the BSD and EPL is to allow integration with GPL licensed applications. We don't typically allow for a dual license of EPL and GPL or AGPL. The BSD license we use is the EDL http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php Using the EDL dual-license provides the maximum interoperablity to other license environments.
I see that the EDL v1.0 is effectively the new BSD license (aka "revised" or "3-clause") with the organization name being the "Eclipse Foundation, Inc". Which is a BSD license variant that is compatible with the GPL (unlike the old BSD license).
I didn't mean to suggest that the Eclipse Foundation would dual-license to include AGPLv3 ... but, rather I'd like to continue to offer my code (via GitHub) with the AGPLv3 license independently of what the Eclipse Foundation chooses to do with the code.
I hope this would be acceptable.
I would prefer (if possible) to know ahead of time whether you will or won't use the EDL for Paho, because Mike said "there is a _chance_". I've read that the default for Eclipse Foundation projects is the EPL alone ... and that using the EDL for Eclipse Foundation projects requires the approval of the Eclipse Board of Directors.
I've also read the Licensing Example Code policy statement that indicates the use of EDL for example code ... "which is never part of the project implementation technology" ...
http://mmilinkov.wordpress.com/2009/05/21/some-new-license-flexibility
http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/Licensing_Example_Code.pdf
How about we move the details of this licensing discussion "off list" ... so that we don't bore everyone else to death.
And, then post the final outcome back "on list" ?
--
-O- cheers = /\ /\/ /) `/ =
--O -- http://www.geekscape.org --
OOO -- andyg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- http://twitter.com/geekscape --
