Talk:Eclipse Public License

"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)

GPL compatibility
The "Compatibility with the GPL" section is written TERRIBLY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.214.131.12 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 20 July 2006


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * I think that cherry-picking some small subset of all popular licenses to compare and contrast with the EPL is probably not the best idea. Some brief discussion of the license's copyleft status, and perhaps (by contrast) its status as a non-permissive or non-copyleft license, with specific comparison to particular licenses that are most similar to the EPL might be helpful, though. - Apotheon (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The GPLv3 similarly requires a grant of patent license, so it's possible that the EPL and the GPLv3 are compatible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.183.110 (talk) 04:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Outdated compatibility information
It's clear that this was written in 2006, when version 2 was the latest version of the GPL. According to the FSF, the current version of the GPL is still incompatible with the EPL, but for a completely different reason (choice of law clause). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.28.14.219 (talk) 03:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eclipse Public License. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607225635/http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/e/eclipse-emf/eclipse-emf_2.5.0-1/eclipse-emf.copyright to http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/e/eclipse-emf/eclipse-emf_2.5.0-1/eclipse-emf.copyright

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

New Version Published
The EPL 2.0 is now released. Here is the announcement.


 * https://www.eclipse.org/org/press-release/20170829eplv2.php

FSF has not yet added it to its license list or released a statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuagay (talk • contribs) 15:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Here is the license text. Am just about to update the infobox on the article proper.  With best wishes.  RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * This page now requires some work to explain the attributes of the new version2.0 license to readers. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * ✅. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 10:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eclipse Public License. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140429061958/http://www.opendaylight.org/resources/faq to http://www.opendaylight.org/resources/faq

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Who is "they"?
In the Compatibility section is the following sentence:

"The EPL, however, requires that anyone distributing the work grant every recipient a license to any patents that they might hold that cover the modifications they have made."

There are two instances of the pronoun, "they" in that sentence, and it is not clear whether "they" refers to the distributor or the recipient. Does anyone have clarification to offer or a suggested alternative wording? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.229.59.142 (talk) 14:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Trim and merge into Eclipse Foundation?
I don't edit in software / computer science wikipedia, so do go ahead and discard this idea if it doesn't make sense for a genre-specific reason I'm not seeing, but I wonder if this might be better off being trimmed significantly and merged into the article on the foundation itself? I assume this is a notable topic that could plausibly have its own standalone wp article, but there's been an "update" tag on this since 2015, so I'm not sure how useful this is to anyone. A cleaner description that's less likely to go out of date, with a link to further information on their own website, might be a more useful and stable long-term solution. -- asilvering (talk) 00:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)