Proposal to change Erlang's license

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Proposal to change Erlang's license

musicdenotation
Currently, Erlang uses the Erlang Public License, a modification of the Mozilla Public License version 1.1. Neither is compatible with the GPL. Recently Mozilla published version 2.0 and I think you should switch to that for compatibility. Thanks!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20131115/e925fc0c/attachment.html>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Proposal to change Erlang's license

Francesco Mazzoli-2
There have been suggestions by the Erlang Industrial User Group to change license for quite some time. Indeed, the suggestion was taken onboard and it looks like MPL 2.0 is the chosen one. Expect an official announcement soon.

Francesco

Kalinni Gorzkis <musicdenotation> wrote:

>Currently, Erlang uses the Erlang Public License, a modification of the
>Mozilla Public License version 1.1. Neither is compatible with the GPL.
>Recently Mozilla published version 2.0 and I think you should switch to
>that for compatibility. Thanks!
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>erlang-questions mailing list
>erlang-questions
>http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions

--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20131115/93bb8348/attachment.html>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Proposal to change Erlang's license

musicdenotation
On Nov 15, 2013 2:51 PM, <francesco> wrote:
>
> There have been suggestions by the Erlang Industrial User Group to change
license for quite some time. Indeed, the suggestion was taken onboard and
it looks like MPL 2.0 is the chosen one. Expect an official announcement
soon.
>
> Francesco
>
> Kalinni Gorzkis <musicdenotation> wrote:
>>
>> Currently, Erlang uses the Erlang Public License, a modification of the
Mozilla Public License version 1.1. Neither is compatible with the GPL.
Recently Mozilla published version 2.0 and I think you should switch to
that for compatibility. Thanks!

>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> erlang-questions mailing list
>> erlang-questions
>> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>
>
> --
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
The original MPL 2.0 or a modified version? Don't modify the license, the
modified version will be GPL-incompatible, and the MPL 2.0 is designed to
be international.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20131115/5bbfd215/attachment.html>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Proposal to change Erlang's license

Benoit Chesneau
In reply to this post by musicdenotation
Imo a language should use a liberal license to be widely accepted. What is
the point of using a copy-left license? The Erlang Public License is not
really clear on that, not sure if you have to make public the changes or
just keep it opensourced and freely used.

Even mozilla for rust is providing an Apache and MIT license.

my 2 cents.

- benoit


On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 7:06 AM, Kalinni Gorzkis
<musicdenotation>wrote:

> Currently, Erlang uses the Erlang Public License, a modification of the
> Mozilla Public License version 1.1. Neither is compatible with the GPL.
> Recently Mozilla published version 2.0<http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/%E2%80%8E> and
> I think you should switch to that for compatibility. Thanks!
>
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20131115/653a299b/attachment.html>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Proposal to change Erlang's license

Loïc Hoguin-2
In reply to this post by musicdenotation
On 11/15/2013 11:31 AM, Kalinni Gorzkis wrote:
> The original MPL 2.0 or a modified version? Don't modify the license,
> the modified version will be GPL-incompatible, and the MPL 2.0 is
> designed to be international.

The goal is to have a well known unmodified license to make it easier to
use Erlang in commercial projects. Choice is MPL 2.0 because the current
license is derived from MPL 1.0.

--
Lo?c Hoguin
Erlang Cowboy
Nine Nines
http://ninenines.eu

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Proposal to change Erlang's license

Francesco Mazzoli-2
The original MPL 2.0, no a modified one. What Loic says is correct, and
from what I understand, Ericsson legal is ok with this approach.
Contributors who have submitted changes have already been contacted, and
the response was favorable.

Francesco

On 15/11/2013 11:32, Lo?c Hoguin wrote:
> On 11/15/2013 11:31 AM, Kalinni Gorzkis wrote:
>> The original MPL 2.0 or a modified version? Don't modify the license,
>> the modified version will be GPL-incompatible, and the MPL 2.0 is
>> designed to be international.
>
> The goal is to have a well known unmodified license to make it easier
> to use Erlang in commercial projects. Choice is MPL 2.0 because the
> current license is derived from MPL 1.0.
>

--
Erlang Solutions Ltd.
http://www.erlang-solutions.com


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Proposal to change Erlang's license

musicdenotation
On Nov 15, 2013 6:38 PM, "Francesco Cesarini" <
francesco> wrote:
>
> The original MPL 2.0, no a modified one. What Loic says is correct, and
from what I understand, Ericsson legal is ok with this approach.
Contributors who have submitted changes have already been contacted, and
the response was favorable.

>
> Francesco
>
>
> On 15/11/2013 11:32, Lo?c Hoguin wrote:
>>
>> On 11/15/2013 11:31 AM, Kalinni Gorzkis wrote:
>>>
>>> The original MPL 2.0 or a modified version? Don't modify the license,
>>> the modified version will be GPL-incompatible, and the MPL 2.0 is
>>> designed to be international.
>>
>>
>> The goal is to have a well known unmodified license to make it easier to
use Erlang in commercial projects. Choice is MPL 2.0 because the current
license is derived from MPL 1.0.
>>
>
> --
> Erlang Solutions Ltd.
> http://www.erlang-solutions.com
>
Everything is OK now. But please license it under "MPL 2.80 or any later
version", not "MPL 2.0 only".
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20131115/9bba66ab/attachment.html>