Re: Licensing and the library version of git

From: Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz>
Date: Jul 27, 2006, 17:20 UTC
Message-ID: <20060727172047.GB13776@pasky.or.cz>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0607271602060.29667@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de>

Hi,

Dear diary, on Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 04:04:11PM CEST, I got a letter where Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> said that...

Show 12 quoted lines

> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Jon Smirl wrote:
> 
> > On 7/27/06, Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
> > > ... or whether it is neccessary for an Eclipse-plugin to something else
> > > than GPL.
> > 
> > Eclipse is not licensed GPL.
> 
> We are talking about Eclipse _plugins_ here. Often (especially when the 
> deciding people have $$ in their eyes), plugins have less restrictions 
> (for example, WSAD would not be possible if _all_ extensions to Eclipse 
> would have to be CPL).

  I concur. IANAL but from my understanding is that GPL requires just
the work and its derivatives to be free. So it's a matter of the
derivatives chain; if you write the plugin, does Eclipse become its
derivative work? Well, the derivation went the other way around, so
the plugin is derivative work of Git and possibly Eclipse. So AFAICS the
only possible clash that _might_ happen is if Git requires CVS and
Eclipse requires some other licence.

  Too bad for Eclipse's GPL-incompatible viral licence...

-- 
				Petr "Pasky" Baudis
Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/
Snow falling on Perl. White noise covering line noise.
Hides all the bugs too. -- J. Putnam