Dual license?
Opened this issue · 9 comments
Is there any chance that WinRun4J could be dual-licensed under a more popular commercial-friendly license such as BSD, Apache, or MIT? The CPL is uncommon outside of the Eclipse ecosystem.
Hmm, yeah, agreed, CPL seems a bit of an odd choice in hindsight. Any concerns with LGPL?
Unfortunately I can't use the LGPL at my company, due to its infamous "reverse engineering clause"... it's one of those almost-but-not-quite-commercial-friendly licenses :) BSD or Apache would be great, unless of course you're opposed to those licenses for some reason.
Ok, thanks for the feedback. Let me go through the options. BSD or Apache seem fine so will likely pick one of those. Cheers.
Hi, is there any update to this? Our company is also concerned about the CPL. Even a change to the EPL (which eclipse have moved to, and is basically identical with one small patent-related change, which is the sticking point for us) would be much better. Obviously, BSD/Apache would also be very good.
A statement here or by email would be sufficient if you don't have the time to do a full release.
Thanks,
Matt
Hi Matt,
Yes, please consider WinRun4J to be dual licensed under CPL and EPL for the time-being. I will eventually get around to cleaning up and converting to either EPL or BSD/Apache.
Regards,
Peter
Actually, to clarify, please consider WinRun4J to be dual licensed under CPL and EPL until further notice.
On Sun Apr 19 12:56, poidasmith wrote:
Actually, to clarify, please consider WinRun4J to be dual licensed under CPL and EPL until further notice.
Thanks a lot, that's really helpful
Matt
Is there an actual license file somewhere that one can review?
My humble recommendation to solve this issue would be to put a copy of the EPL in the highest level directory since the EPL supersedes the CPL and the EPL is a known good license and should serve both the users of the code and the developers well.