|
Why the EPL ?
|
In late January I wrote to eclispe licensing about the port:
From: [address hidden]
Subject: Porting SWT to C++
Date: 30 January 2005 14:06:01 GMT
To: license@eclipse.org
Dear Sirs,
I am considering porting SWT to C++ with OSX, Win32 and GTK as initial
targets. At some point I will want to "open source" this port for various reasons,
man-power being a strong one :)
Could you tell me which licensing issues I'm about to run into, and what are
the requirements of the eclipse foundation regarding this kind of port.
Obviously, what I would be porting is the design and most of the classes,
though none of the *actual* original SWT code would be included since
it would go through a C++ translation first.
The CPL sounds OK to me. Anything else you think I should consider?
Many thanks,
--
Jean-François Brouillet
And I received a reply immediatedly from Mike Milinkovich:
From: [address hidden]@eclipse.org
Subject: RE: Porting SWT to C++
Date: 30 January 2005 21:05:06 GMT
To: [address hidden]
Well, actually we would prefer that you use the Eclipse Public License (EPL)
rather than the CPL.
But other than that, I think what you are proposing is fine. If you are
basing your interfaces on the SWT ones, then what you are doing would be a
derivative work. If your plans are to open source the work under the EPL,
then I cannot see any issues.
Since your interfaces are based on the SWT interfaces, I believe you should
retain the existing copyright notices in the files and append your
copyrights to those.
In terms of other requirements, I would expect that you would follow our
trademark guidelines for any use of the "Eclipse" logo. It would, of course,
be nice to have an acknowledgement that you have based your work on SWT.
Mike Milinkovich
Executive Director,
Eclipse Foundation, Inc.
|
|
