Noel Grandin <email@example.com> wrote on 10/21/2005 05:07:55 AM:
> Reading through the license, it seems that this change is definitely not
> intended to be "commercial friendly".
> They appear to be pursuing a dual-license strategy (like Trolltech and
> Which is fine, since they wrote the code, but means that it is probably
> not EPL-compatible.
> Which in turn means that if subclipse aims to eventually move closer to
> Eclipse, JavaSVN will need to go.
> IANAL, etc, etc.
Taking the example of a commercial IDE based on Eclipse. If they include
the Subclipse plugin in that distribution, and Subclipse is open source,
then are they complying with the license? IANAL either, but it would
really seem to violate the spirit of the Eclipse environment if one
library used by one plugin could "infect" the entire IDE with its license
If tmate.org agrees with my interpretation, what sort of "official
recognition" do you think we need to obtain from them?
Scanned for SoftLanding Systems, Inc. and SoftLanding Europe Plc by IBM Email Security Management Services powered by MessageLabs.
Received on Fri Oct 21 22:53:13 2005