Talk:Eclipse Public License

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The "Compatibility with the GPL" section is written TERRIBLY.

--Somebody, Sometime (UTC)

I disagree. The whole article is written terribly. I suggest throwing sections 3-8 in the bin. A rephrasing of the license is not really encyclopaedic, anyway; this is not the place for legal advice, and if you want legal advice you should get your lawyer to read the actual license.

What should be present, in my opinion, is a *brief* list of important differences between the EPL and the two most common licenses (say, GPL and MIT), and then something on the license's history, any controversy it's been involved in, some notable projects or organisations that use it (Eclipse and IBM, perhaps? ;).

80.168.174.98 15:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "In my opinion"

Section Later Versions specifically says "in my opinion" about something.

Fix, anyone?

Thanks. --Amir E. Aharoni 06:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GPL compatibility

And why is the part about "Compatibility with the GPL" almost at the top of the article?

Marvi 15:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned that up, but there is still so much wrong information in this article.

C.Oezbek 16:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The GPL is the main licence of the free software community, used by 50 or 75 percent of free software (depending on what way you count). Whether or not software is compatible with it is important. Gronky 11:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Possibly because the name 'Eclipse Public License' clearly suggests that the license is intended to be compared with the GPL? The two acronyms even rhyme. Compare Sun's 'CDDL'. Counterpoint: Netscape's NPL. 80.168.174.98 14:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The EPL is not compatible with the GPL as the article implies. Follow the reference for the statement (the one that says the FSF approves of the EPL.) OssDev (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)