On 08/08/2012 01:23 PM, Luis Villa wrote:
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Richard Fontana
<fontana(a)sharpeleven.org> wrote:
> I haven't pushed this to [gitorious] yet, but I have a draft
EPL
> compatibility provision that says:
>
> You may Distribute a Derived Work that includes files licensed
> under the Eclipse Public License 1.0 ("EPL"), provided that
> such Distribution complies with the requirements of the
> EPL. The requirement stated in [Distribution: General](b) of
> This License shall be narrowed in scope solely to the extent
> necessary to facilitate this permission.
>
> A problem with this approach, which is the only one feasible I think,
> is it has that unfortunate "stet license cleverness" quality to it.
Yes, but that (and definition of "work") aside, it seems reasonable.
Would certainly work for MPL, I would think (though can't review it
carefully enough right at this moment to be certain).
BTW the reason I didn't even think of an "MPL compatibility provision"
is because MPL 2.0 and (current) copyleft-next both achieve
GPLv2+/AGPLv3+ compatibility. But I wonder if there's some value in
making an EPL provision (if it works out) be an "EPL or MPL" provision.
- RF