-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Define (default) license for shared code repositories #2
Comments
@MarkusTiede is it possible to use licenses like GPL-v3 within the Eclipse foundation? |
@MMore - yes; the EPL-v2 has the concept of „Secondary License“ which is specifically made for GPL-v2 and higher combination scenarios. We used this e.g. as a license proposal for OpenPrevo. |
However GPL is then the secondary license (with EPL-v2 being first) and the consumer may choose by himself. |
I think it's a (very) good compromise to try to avoid the tragedy of anticommons (which might apply with the EPL as e.g. patents are explicitly allowed) and tragedy of commons (which might (somehow) apply with the GPL). |
Gaining (informal) feedback from the OSI as well as Eclipse Foundation the most preferred license with respect to flexibility (being consumend / adopted without major constraints from a copy-left) at the moment is Apache-2.0. We will also very likely take recommend this as a default license for Baloise wide activities. |
We at https://github.com/aposin also decided to use Apache-2.0. |
@MMore and I would prefer a (weak) copy-left license by default; reasons:
Proposal: EPL-v2 (OSI / FSF approved)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: