Why EPL? I use Clojure everyday and I know why it is EPL'd, but I wish it was another license since it's incompatible with the GPL. Couldn't you consider a GPL-friendly license? It sets the tone for the community.
I think by "virality" what was meant was that GPL libraries "infect" non-GPL because the larger work must also be released as GPL. For programming languages, though, this should not be an issue, unless somebody is bundling the whole interpreter/compiler with their app.
I think by "virality" what was meant was that GPL libraries "infect" non-GPL because the larger work must also be released as GPL. For programming languages, though, this should not be an issue, unless somebody is bundling the whole interpreter/compiler with their app.
For programming languages that include a prelude or standard library on which most actual programs will rely on in whole or in part, it may be problematic (and, of course, its especially problematic for languages where substantial parts of the interpreter/compiler itself is part of that standard library, as is the case of any language which implements a general purpose eval.)
This is why almost all free programming languages has their standard library under licenses like LGPL. That license was was created by the free software foundation for the glibc, in order to give direct permission to compile and ship non-free software that uses it.
The GPL allows you to modify the source and provide a service on a public server without having to share your modifications.*
But I understand if you prefer a more permissíve license. Lots of people go with MIT License, it's very short, permissive and compatible with the GPL. Apache v2 is also compatible.
Last time I tried understanding the key subtleties of the EPL I came out empty handed, but it would seem it's more viral than the permissive licenses above, bit less so than the GPL.
* That's why the AGPL exists, so someone working on a Lux REPL would only have to show the code for his online Lux modifications if Lux was AGPL.
The GPL is pretty much banned across the entire industry because of the fact that it forces accompanying software to be open sourced as well, which is a deal breaker for most companies.
The GPL is pretty much banned across the entire industry because of the fact that it forces accompanying software to be open sourced as well
The GPL explicitly doesn't require accompanying software to be released under any particular license. (See, e.g., GPLv3 Sec. 5, ending with "Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate.")
Comments
Why EPL? I use Clojure everyday and I know why it is EPL'd, but I wish it was another license since it's incompatible with the GPL. Couldn't you consider a GPL-friendly license? It sets the tone for the community.
I am not much of a licenses buff, so I just went with EPL because it sounded reasonable.
Anything that looks like *GPL will be avoided because of its virality.
How is EPL incompatible with GPL and what licenses are friendly to it? Apache License v2? (That's another one I was considering)
You're avoiding a license because it's popular?
I think by "virality" what was meant was that GPL libraries "infect" non-GPL because the larger work must also be released as GPL. For programming languages, though, this should not be an issue, unless somebody is bundling the whole interpreter/compiler with their app.
For programming languages that include a prelude or standard library on which most actual programs will rely on in whole or in part, it may be problematic (and, of course, its especially problematic for languages where substantial parts of the interpreter/compiler itself is part of that standard library, as is the case of any language which implements a general purpose eval.)
This is why almost all free programming languages has their standard library under licenses like LGPL. That license was was created by the free software foundation for the glibc, in order to give direct permission to compile and ship non-free software that uses it.
In the future, I plan to rewrite the Lux compiler in Lux itself, and one of the reasons is to allow people to embed it and use it's API.
That way, if someone wants to create an online Lux REPL for people to try Lux, it won't be hard for them to do so.
The GPL allows you to modify the source and provide a service on a public server without having to share your modifications.*
But I understand if you prefer a more permissíve license. Lots of people go with MIT License, it's very short, permissive and compatible with the GPL. Apache v2 is also compatible.
See here about EPL being incompatible: https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/using-the-gpl-for-eclips...
Last time I tried understanding the key subtleties of the EPL I came out empty handed, but it would seem it's more viral than the permissive licenses above, bit less so than the GPL.
* That's why the AGPL exists, so someone working on a Lux REPL would only have to show the code for his online Lux modifications if Lux was AGPL.
He meant 'viral' as a negative.
The GPL is pretty much banned across the entire industry because of the fact that it forces accompanying software to be open sourced as well, which is a deal breaker for most companies.
The GPL explicitly doesn't require accompanying software to be released under any particular license. (See, e.g., GPLv3 Sec. 5, ending with "Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate.")