GPL3 - EPL compatibility

[Roberto Majadas Lopez]

Hello erlang hackers :

I'm planning to develop a erlang program and i want to release it under gpl3 license.

i read, in the gnu web page, epl (mpl 1.0 based license) is not compatible with GPL(2/3).

In this page http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html gnu layers explain this ...

----

Mozilla Public License (MPL)

This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; unlike the X11 license, it has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU GPL. That is, a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the MPL cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the MPL for this reason.

However, MPL 1.1 has a provision (section 13) that allows a program (or parts of it) to offer a choice of another license as well. If part of a program allows the GNU GPL as an alternate choice, or any other GPL-compatible license as an alternate choice, that part of the program has a GPL-compatible license.

-----

So , if EPL don't have the MPL1.1 section 13 , EPL is not GPL compatible.

But, in the other hand, the ejabberd2 license was released under GPL2.

So my questions are  : 

* can i release source code under GPL3 or 2 using Erlang?

* if i can't do it , can erlang team to consider add the section 13 to the EPL license and make it GPL compatible ?

regards

Roberto

_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions

[Jesse Gumm]

You're free to release a program under any license you want.  The EPL
pertains to the Erlang language itself, not necessarily to programs
written in Erlang.



On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Roberto Majadas Lopez
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello erlang hackers :
> I'm planning to develop a erlang program and i want to release it under gpl3
> license.
> i read, in the gnu web page, epl (mpl 1.0 based license) is not compatible
> with GPL(2/3).
> In this page http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html gnu layers
> explain this ...
> ----
> Mozilla Public License (MPL)
> This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; unlike the
> X11 license, it has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with
> the GNU GPL. That is, a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by
> the MPL cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the MPL
> for this reason.
> However, MPL 1.1 has a provision (section 13) that allows a program (or
> parts of it) to offer a choice of another license as well. If part of a
> program allows the GNU GPL as an alternate choice, or any other
> GPL-compatible license as an alternate choice, that part of the program has
> a GPL-compatible license.
> -----
> So , if EPL don't have the MPL1.1 section 13 , EPL is not GPL compatible.
> But, in the other hand, the ejabberd2 license was released under GPL2.
> So my questions are  :
> * can i release source code under GPL3 or 2 using Erlang?
> * if i can't do it , can erlang team to consider add the section 13 to the
> EPL license and make it GPL compatible ?
> regards
> Roberto
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>
>

--
Jesse Gumm
Sigma Star Systems
414.940.4866
[hidden email]
http://www.sigma-star.com
_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions

[Roberto Majadas Lopez]

2011/4/26 Jesse Gumm <[hidden email]>

You're free to release a program under any license you want.  The EPL
pertains to the Erlang language itself, not necessarily to programs
written in Erlang.

But if i use erlang crypto server or another one released under EPL . 

can this relationship be considered dynamic link ?

Roberto

 

On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Roberto Majadas Lopez
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hello erlang hackers :
> I'm planning to develop a erlang program and i want to release it under gpl3
> license.
> i read, in the gnu web page, epl (mpl 1.0 based license) is not compatible
> with GPL(2/3).
> In this page http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html gnu layers
> explain this ...
> ----
> Mozilla Public License (MPL)
> This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; unlike the
> X11 license, it has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with
> the GNU GPL. That is, a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by
> the MPL cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the MPL
> for this reason.
> However, MPL 1.1 has a provision (section 13) that allows a program (or
> parts of it) to offer a choice of another license as well. If part of a
> program allows the GNU GPL as an alternate choice, or any other
> GPL-compatible license as an alternate choice, that part of the program has
> a GPL-compatible license.
> -----
> So , if EPL don't have the MPL1.1 section 13 , EPL is not GPL compatible.
> But, in the other hand, the ejabberd2 license was released under GPL2.
> So my questions are  :
> * can i release source code under GPL3 or 2 using Erlang?
> * if i can't do it , can erlang team to consider add the section 13 to the
> EPL license and make it GPL compatible ?
> regards
> Roberto
>
>
>

> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>
>



--
Jesse Gumm
Sigma Star Systems
414.940.4866
[hidden email]
http://www.sigma-star.com

_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions

[Nicolas Niclausse]

Roberto Majadas Lopez ecrivait le 26/04/2011 20:40:
> 2011/4/26 Jesse Gumm <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>
>     You're free to release a program under any license you want.  The EPL
>     pertains to the Erlang language itself, not necessarily to programs
>     written in Erlang.
>
>
> But if i use erlang crypto server or another one released under EPL .
> can this relationship be considered dynamic link ?

Hello,

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InterpreterIncompat

If i understand well, if you use a library not included in the erlang VM
and not compatible with the GPL, it can be a problem.

For tsung (GPL also), as suggested in the FAQ, i added an explicit
exception giving permission to link with EPL libs, to avoid any license
trouble.

--
Nicolas
_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions

[Richard Carlsson-3]

On 04/26/2011 06:40 PM, Roberto Majadas Lopez wrote:
> 2011/4/26 Jesse Gumm <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>
>     You're free to release a program under any license you want.  The EPL
>     pertains to the Erlang language itself, not necessarily to programs
>     written in Erlang.

The Erlang language itself is not licensed - anyone can make their own
implementation if they want. The standard BEAM interpreter from OTP is
published under EPL, but generallly, code running under an interpreter
is just considered to be input and is not affected by the licensing (see
e.g. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL).
Perhaps this is what Jesse meant. The standard library is another
matter, however - see below.

>
> But if i use erlang crypto server or another one released under EPL .
> can this relationship be considered dynamic link ?

Yes, it can. See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-java.html - the
situation is the same for Erlang. You can't use GPL (any version) in
combination with the Erlang standard libraries since they are published
only under the EPL. The LGPL (2 or 3) can however be used.

     /Richard
_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions

[Joe Armstrong-2]

On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 6:09 PM, Richard Carlsson <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 04/26/2011 06:40 PM, Roberto Majadas Lopez wrote:

2011/4/26 Jesse Gumm <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>

   You're free to release a program under any license you want.  The EPL
   pertains to the Erlang language itself, not necessarily to programs
   written in Erlang.

The Erlang language itself is not licensed - anyone can make their own implementation if they want.

If memory serves me well this is not quite true. Erlang is (or at least was)  registered
as a trademark in many countries. You are free to make your own implementation but
not call it Erlang. The thinking behind this was to try and stop people making a language
that was called Erlang but that did not have Erlang semantics, they would have to
use a different name - this is a completely separate issue to the licensing issue.

This was done years ago before open source became open and was still closed - I have
no idea if this still applies today.

If you want to make your own Erlang feel free, but give it a new name like iErlang for
example...

Observant folks will have noticed that Microsoft and others are suing Apple over trademarking claims to the string "App Store"

/Joe

 

The standard BEAM interpreter from OTP is published under EPL, but generallly, code running under an interpreter is just considered to be input and is not affected by the licensing (see e.g. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL). Perhaps this is what Jesse meant. The standard library is another matter, however - see below.

But if i use erlang crypto server or another one released under EPL .
can this relationship be considered dynamic link ?

Yes, it can. See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-java.html - the situation is the same for Erlang. You can't use GPL (any version) in combination with the Erlang standard libraries since they are published only under the EPL. The LGPL (2 or 3) can however be used.

   /Richard

_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions

_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions

[Jesse Gumm]

On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Richard Carlsson
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> but generallly, code running under an interpreter is
> just considered to be input and is not affected by the licensing (see e.g.
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL). Perhaps this
> is what Jesse meant.

You are correct, that is what I meant.  Code you write is yours,
regardless of the language it's written in.

An .erl file you write is yours to release as you will, with the
license of your choise, even if it interacts with code or libraries
that you didn't write.  That's not to say you can re-release someone
else's code (ie the Erlang VM or its libraries) under whatever license
you want.

And the OP sounds like he just wants to write his own stuff and
distribute it on github or whatever.  There are no problems there in
doing so.

-Jesse

--
Jesse Gumm
Sigma Star Systems
414.940.4866
[hidden email]
http://www.sigma-star.com
_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions