[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Access-activists] New member with a big project

From: Christian Hofstader
Subject: Re: [Access-activists] New member with a big project
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 14:21:57 -0400

I haven't looked into the Eclipse license but GNU hackers often use Eclipse as 
an IDE of choice (I prefer emacspeak but I'm old and quirky). There may be some 
issues if one were to use code from Eclipse under the Eclipse license in a GPL 
program as the different licenses may not mix properly  in all places.

I'm the accessibility guy, you should ask one of the legal types.

I don't think BrailleBlaster is actually using any Eclipse code but, rather, is 
just using the IDE which makes no matter regarding licenses as its output isn't 
covered by its license. I think John uses a command line compiler and bash is 
definitely GPL as it was original GNU code.

I'm told Eclipse works pretty good on all platforms which, for John and his 
crew, is really important.


On Sep 2, 2010, at 11:56 AM, Jamal Mazrui wrote:

> I realize there are other free licenses besides GPL, but thought that
> GNU only promoted (via various resources) programs that were at least
> GPL-compatible in their licenses.  That is my main question regarding
> the Braille Blaster project.  I know that it can proceed with any
> combination of licenses without GNU support.  Since such support could
> be helpful, however, I am trying to determine whether the use of
> Eclipse-licensed software is an obstacle.  What I have read on both
> and implies that it would be an obstacle, but if
> there is conceptually something I am missing that reconciles these
> issues, I want to understand it.
> Jamal
> -----Original Message-----
> From: address@hidden
> [mailto:address@hidden On Behalf
> Of Jason Self
> Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 11:27 AM
> To: address@hidden
> Cc: address@hidden
> Subject: RE: [Access-activists] New member with a big project
> Jamal Mazrui wrote...
>> What does it mean for a license to be "incompatible" with the GPL?
> From the FAQ at which should be
> helpful in understanding:
>> How can a developer know that a project retains GPL compatibility?  I 
>> thought it was by checking the discussion of specific licenses at
> I think that's a good place to go for license compatibility information.
>> I thought that list is based on an application of the relevant freedom
>> principles.
> It's a little bit of both: It documents both free and non-free software
> licenses, but if you'll notice, the free software licenses are broken
> down into GPL-compatible ones and GPL-incompatible ones.
> The GPL is used by lots of free software programs so maintaining
> compatibility with it is generally a good thing in my opinion, but just
> because a license isn't compatible with the GPL doesn't automatically
> mean it's non-free. Whether it's a free software license or not depends
> on what the license says.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]