| <?php |
| /************************************************************************** |
| * Copyright (c) 2005,2017 Eclipse Foundation and others. |
| * |
| * This program and the accompanying materials are made available |
| * under the terms of the Eclipse Public License 2.0 which accompanies |
| * this distribution, and is available at http://eclipse.org/legal/epl-2.0 |
| **************************************************************************/ |
| require_once ($_SERVER['DOCUMENT_ROOT'] . "/eclipse.org-common/system/app.class.php"); |
| require_once ($_SERVER['DOCUMENT_ROOT'] . "/eclipse.org-common/system/nav.class.php"); |
| require_once ($_SERVER['DOCUMENT_ROOT'] . "/eclipse.org-common/system/menu.class.php"); |
| |
| $App = new App(); |
| $Nav = new Nav(); |
| $Menu = new Menu(); |
| include ($App->getProjectCommon()); |
| |
| $pageTitle = "Eclipse Public License 1.0 (EPL) Frequently Asked Questions"; |
| $pageKeywords = "epl, cpl, legal, faq, foundation, eclipse, license, licenses"; |
| $pageAuthor = "Mike Milinkovich, Nov. 21, 2005"; |
| |
| ob_start(); |
| ?> |
| <div id="midcolumn"> |
| <h1><?php echo $pageTitle; ?></h1> |
| <p> |
| <strong>Please see the <a |
| href="https://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/epl-2.0/faq.php">Eclipse |
| Public License 2.0 FAQ</a>. |
| </strong> |
| </p> |
| <p> |
| <strong>For informational purposes only.</strong> |
| </p> |
| <p> |
| This FAQ attempts to provide answers to commonly asked questions |
| related to <em>the <a href="../org/documents/epl-v10.php">Eclipse |
| Public License 1.0 (EPL)</a></em>. It is provided for informational |
| purposes only. It is not part of, nor does it modify, amend, or |
| supplement the terms of the EPL. The EPL is a legal agreement that |
| governs the rights granted to material licensed under it, so please |
| read it carefully. If there is any conflict between this FAQ and the |
| EPL, the terms of the EPL shall govern. This FAQ should not be |
| regarded as legal advice. If you need legal advice, you must contact |
| your own lawyer. |
| </p> |
| |
| <div class="homeitem3col"> |
| <h3>Table of Contents</h3> |
| <ol> |
| <li><a href="#CPLEPL">What is the relationship between the CPL and |
| the EPL 1.0?</a></li> |
| <li><a href="#WHYEPL">Why was the EPL 1.0 written?</a></li> |
| <li><a href="#EPLDIFFER">Specifically how does the EPL 1.0 differ |
| from the CPL?</a></li> |
| <li><a href="#EPLVERSION">What is the latest version of the EPL</a></li> |
| <li><a href="#MEMAPPROVE">Do all Eclipse Foundation members approve |
| of the EPL?</a></li> |
| <li><a href="#TRANSITION">How and when will the Eclipse Foundation |
| transition from the CPL to the EPL 1.0?</a></li> |
| <li><a href="#EPLOSI">Is the EPL approved by the Open Source |
| Initiative (OSI)?</a></li> |
| <li><a href="#LICAPP">What is required for OSI license approval?</a></li> |
| <li><a href="#BUSADVOS">What are the business advantages of the Open |
| Source model?</a></li> |
| <li><a href="#TECHADVOS">What are the technical advantages of the |
| Open Source model?</a></li> |
| <li><a href="#PARTIESEPL">How are the parties defined in the EPL 1.0?</a></li> |
| <li><a href="#ANONCONTR">Can a Contributor remain anonymous?</a></li> |
| <li><a href="#RECRIGHTS">What rights do Contributors grant Recipients |
| under EPL 1.0?</a></li> |
| <li><a href="#USEINANOTHER">Does the EPL 1.0 allow me to take the |
| Source Code for a Program licensed under it and include all or part |
| of it in another program licensed under the GPL, BSD license or |
| other Open Source license?</a></li> |
| <li><a href="#COMPILEWOMOD">Can I take a Program licensed under the |
| EPL 1.0, compile it without modification, and commercially license |
| the result?</a></li> |
| <li><a href="#SOURCEWOBJ">Do I need to include the source code for |
| such Program with the object code distribution?</a></li> |
| <li><a href="#PROPPROD">When I incorporate a portion of a Program |
| licensed under the EPL 1.0 into my own proprietary product |
| distributed in object code form, can I use a single license for the |
| full product, in other words, covering the portion of the Program |
| plus my own code?</a></li> |
| <li><a href="#AGREESTEWARD">The EPL states that it can be changed by |
| the Agreement Steward. Does a Contributor have the choice of |
| redistributing a previously distributed Program under the old or |
| the new version of the EPL?</a></li> |
| <li><a href="#MODNODIST">If I modify a Program licensed under the |
| EPL, but never distribute it to anyone else, do I have to make my |
| modifications available to others?</a></li> |
| <li><a href="#MODDIST">If I modify a Program licensed under the EPL |
| and distribute the object code of the modified Program for free, |
| must I make the source code available?</a></li> |
| <li><a href="#MODULEDIST">If I write a module to add to a Program |
| licensed under the EPL and distribute the object code of the module |
| along with the rest of the Program, must I make the source code to |
| my module available in accordance with the terms of the EPL?</a></li> |
| <li><a href="#SRCREDIST">What are my obligations if I copy source |
| code obtained from Eclipse.org and licensed under the Eclipse |
| Public License and include it in my product that I then distribute?</a></li> |
| <li><a href="#EPLWARRANTY">Does the EPL offer any warranty with |
| regard to the Program?</a></li> |
| <li><a href="#GETANSWER">This document does not have the answer to my |
| question. How can I get my question answered?</a></li> |
| <li><a href="#DERIV">Some open source software communities specify |
| what they mean by a "derivative work". Does the Eclipse |
| Foundation have a position on this?</a></li> |
| <li><a href="#LINK">Some free software communities say that linking |
| to their code automatically means that your program is a derivative |
| work. Is this the position of the Eclipse Foundation?</a></li> |
| <li><a href="#EXAMPLE">I‘m a programmer not a lawyer, can you |
| give me a clear cut example of when something is or is not a |
| derivative work?</a></li> |
| <li><a href="#USEEPL">I am starting my own open source software |
| project. Does the Eclipse Foundation allow me to use the EPL for my |
| project?</a></li> |
| <li><a href="#CODEGEN">Many Eclipse tools and wizards use code |
| templates which are included in the application that is generated. |
| Is the code generated by these tools considered a derivative work |
| that must be licensed under the EPL?</a></li> |
| <li><a href="#3RDPARTY">What licenses are acceptable for third-party |
| code redistributed by Eclipse projects?</a></li> |
| <li><a href="#OSICOMPLIANT">Is an OSI-compliant license a requirement |
| for all third-party code redistributed by Eclipse projects?</a></li> |
| <li><a href="#GPLCOMPATIBLE">Are the Eclipse Public License (EPL) 1.0 |
| and the General Public License (GPL) compatible?</a></li> |
| <li><a href="#DUALLIC">For dual-licensed projects, which license |
| terms apply?</a></li> |
| </ol> |
| </div> |
| <h3>Frequently Asked Questions</h3> |
| </blockquote> |
| <ol> |
| <li><strong><a name="CPLEPL">What is the relationship between |
| IBM’s Common Public License (CPL) and the Eclipse Public |
| License 1.0 (EPL)?</a></strong><br /> </b>The Eclipse SDK codebase was |
| originally distributed under the CPL. The EPL 1.0 was derived from <a |
| href="http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/library/os-cpl.html" |
| target="_blank">CPL version 1.0</a>. As a result, much of the |
| information provided in the <a |
| href="http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/library/os-cplfaq/index.html" |
| target="_blank">Common Public License (CPL) Frequently Asked |
| Questions</a> document is relevant to the EPL, as well. The purpose |
| of this FAQ is to highlight the differences.<br /> <br /></li> |
| <li><strong><a name="WHYEPL">Why was the EPL 1.0 written?</a></strong><br /> |
| The EPL 1.0 was written specifically for the <a href="../org/" |
| target="_top">Eclipse Foundation</a>. First, it changes the Agreement |
| Steward, formerly IBM for the CPL, to now be the Eclipse Foundation |
| for the EPL. Second, it addresses concerns some Eclipse Foundation |
| members had with how the CPL deals with possible patent litigation.<br /> |
| <br /></li> |
| <li><strong><a name="EPLDIFFER">Specifically how does the EPL 1.0 |
| differ from the CPL?</a><br /> </strong>Section 7 of the CPL |
| contained the following language:<br /> <br /> <em>"If Recipient |
| institutes patent litigation against a Contributor with respect to a |
| patent applicable to software (including a cross-claim or |
| counterclaim in a lawsuit), then any patent licenses granted by that |
| Contributor to such Recipient under this Agreement shall terminate |
| as of the date such litigation is filed. In addition, if Recipient |
| institutes patent litigation against any entity (including a |
| cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Program |
| itself (excluding combinations of the Program with other software or |
| hardware) infringes such Recipient’s patent(s), then such |
| Recipient’s rights granted under Section 2(b) shall terminate |
| as of the date such litigation is filed."<br /> <br /> |
| </em> The first sentence was removed in the EPL 1.0. Many members and |
| prospective members believed that the first sentence was overly broad |
| and viewed it as an inhibitor to the continued growth of the Eclipse |
| eco-system. The second sentence remains unchanged in the EPL 1.0.<br /> |
| <br /> The current <a href="../org/documents/Eclipse_IP_Policy.pdf">Eclipse |
| Foundation Intellectual Property Policy</a> further clarifies the |
| general principles under which the Eclipse Foundation shall accept |
| contributions, license contributions, license materials owned by the |
| Eclipse Foundation, and manage other intellectual property matters.<br /> |
| <br /></li> |
| <li><strong><a name="EPLVERSION">What is the latest version of the |
| EPL?</a><br /> </strong><a href="epl-2.0">Version 2.0</a> is the |
| latest version of the EPL. Please see the <a |
| href="https://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/epl-2.0/faq.php">Eclipse |
| Public License 2.0 FAQ</a>.<br /> <br /></li> |
| <li><strong><a name="MEMAPPROVE">Do all Eclipse Foundation members |
| approve of the EPL?</a><br /> </strong>Yes, the Eclipse Foundation |
| membership approved the EPL 1.0 unanimously. Future members must |
| agree to abide by the EPL and the Intellectual Property Policy as |
| part of joining the Eclipse Foundation and signing the <a |
| href="../org/documents/Eclipse%20MEMBERSHIP%20AGMT%202003_11_10%20Final.pdf">Eclipse |
| Foundation Membership Agreement</a>.<br /> <br /></li> |
| <li><strong><a name="TRANSITION">How and when will the Eclipse |
| Foundation transition from the CPL to the EPL 1.0?</a><br /> </strong>For |
| details, see the <a href="cpl2epl/CPL2EPLTransitionPlan.pdf">CPL to |
| EPL Transition Plan</a> (.pdf) and the <a |
| href="cpl2epl/cpl2eplfaq.php">CPL to EPL Transition Plan FAQ</a>.<br /> |
| <br /></li> |
| <li><strong><a name="EPLOSI">Is the EPL approved by the Open Source |
| Initiative (OSI)?</a><br /></strong> Yes, the EPL has been |
| approved. Version 1.0 was approved in May 2004. See the complete <a |
| href="http://opensource.org/licenses/" target="_blank">list of |
| OSI-approved licenses</a>.<br /> <br /></li> |
| <li><strong><a name="LICAPP">What is required for OSI license |
| approval?</a><br /></strong> A license qualifies for OSI approval |
| if it conforms to the OSI’s "Open Source Definition" |
| or "OSD." The OSD covers nine topics of concern. Chief |
| among these is the requirement that a license not restrict any party |
| from selling or giving away the software. Further, the Program must |
| include source code, must allow distribution in source code as well |
| as compiled form, and must allow modifications and derived works. |
| Find more information on the <a |
| href="http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php" target="_blank">OSD</a> |
| at opensource.org.<br /> <br /></li> |
| <li><strong><a name="BUSADVOS">What are the business advantages of the |
| Open Source model?<br /></strong> </a>An Open Source community |
| provides a way for individuals and companies to collaborate on |
| projects that would be difficult to achieve on their own..<br /> <br /> |
| </li> |
| <li><strong><a name="TECHADVOS">What are the technical advantages of |
| the Open Source model?</strong></a><br /> The Open Source model has |
| the technical advantage of turning users into potential |
| co-developers. With source code readily available, users will help |
| you debug quickly and promote rapid code enhancements. "Given a |
| bit of encouragement, your users will diagnose problems, suggest |
| fixes, and help improve the code far more quickly than you could |
| unaided." (The Cathedral and the Bazaar, Eric Steven Raymond. |
| See <a href="http://tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/" |
| target="_blank">http://tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/</a>)<br /> |
| <br /></li> |
| <li><strong><a name="PARTIESEPL">How are the parties defined in the |
| EPL 1.0?</strong></a><br /> There are two types of parties to the |
| EPL 1.0. They are "Contributors" and |
| "Recipients." Contributors include an initial Contributor, |
| who is the person or entity that creates the initial code distributed |
| under the EPL 1.0, and subsequent Contributors, who originate changes |
| or additions to the code (the combination referred to as the |
| "Program"). Any person or entity that redistributes the |
| Program is also a Contributor. Recipients include anyone who receives |
| the Program under the EPL, including Contributors.<br /> <br /></li> |
| <li><strong><a name="ANONCONTR">Can a Contributor remain anonymous?</strong></a><br /> |
| No. Except for those who simply redistribute the Program, each |
| Contributor must identify itself as the originator of its |
| Contribution in a way that later Recipients will be able to readily |
| see.<br /> <br /></li> |
| <li><strong><a name="RECRIGHTS">What rights do Contributors grant |
| Recipients under EPL?</strong></a><br /> Contributors license |
| Recipients under the rights that they have in their Contributions.<br /> |
| <br /></li> |
| <li><strong><a name="USEINANOTHER">Does the EPL allow me to take the |
| Source Code for a Program licensed under it and include all or part |
| of it in another program licensed under the GNU General Public |
| License (GPL), Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) license or |
| other Open Source license?</strong></a><br /> No. Only the owner of |
| software can decide whether and how to license it to others. |
| Contributors to a Program licensed under the EPL understand that |
| source code for the Program will be made available under the terms of |
| the EPL. Unless you are the owner of the software or have received |
| permission from the owner, you are not authorized to apply the terms |
| of another license to the Program by including it in a program |
| licensed under another Open Source license.<br /> <br /></li> |
| <li><strong><a name="COMPILEWOMOD">Can I take a Program licensed under |
| the EPL, compile it without modification, and commercially license |
| the result?</strong></a><br /> Yes. You may compile a Program |
| licensed under the EPL without modification and commercially license |
| the result in accordance with the terms of the EPL.<br /> <br /></li> |
| <li><strong><a name="SOURCEWOBJ">Do I need to include the source code |
| for such Program with the object code distribution?</strong></a><br /> |
| No. But you do need to include a statement that the source code is |
| available from you and information on how to obtain it.<br /> <br /> |
| </font></li> |
| <li><strong><a name="PROPPROD">When I incorporate a portion of a |
| Program licensed under the EPL into my own proprietary product |
| distributed in object code form, can I use a single license for the |
| full product, in other words, covering the portion of the Program |
| plus my own code?</strong></a><br /> Yes. The object code for the |
| product may be distributed under a single license as long as it |
| references the EPL portion and complies, for that portion, with the |
| terms of the EPL.<br /> <br /></li> |
| <li><strong><a name="AGREESTEWARD">The EPL states that it can be |
| changed by the Agreement Steward. Does a Contributor have the |
| choice of redistributing a previously distributed Program under the |
| old or the new version of the EPL?</strong></a><br /> While |
| Contributions are licensed under the version of the License under |
| which they are originally distributed, the EPL provides for the |
| ability of any Contributor to choose between that version or a later |
| version.<br /> <br /></li> |
| <li><strong><a name="MODNODIST">If I modify a Program licensed under |
| the EPL, but never distribute it to anyone else, do I have to make |
| my modifications available to others?</strong></a><br /> No. If you |
| do not distribute the modified Program, you do not have to make your |
| modifications available to others.<br /> <br /></li> |
| <li><strong><a name="MODDIST">If I modify a Program licensed under the |
| EPL and distribute the object code of the modified Program for |
| free, must I make the source code available?</strong></a><br /> |
| Yes. By distributing the modified Program, even if it is only a free |
| version of the object code, you are obligated to make the source code |
| to the modified Program available to others.<br /> <br /></li> |
| <li><strong><a name="MODULEDIST">If I write a module to add to a |
| Program licensed under the EPL and distribute the object code of |
| the module along with the rest of the Program, must I make the |
| source code to my module available in accordance with the terms of |
| the EPL?</strong></a><br /> No, as long as the module is not a |
| derivative work of the Program.<br /> <br /></li> |
| <li><strong><a name="SRCREDIST">What are my obligations if I copy |
| source code obtained from Eclipse.org and licensed under the |
| Eclipse Public License and include it in my product that I then |
| distribute?</a></strong><br /> Source code licensed under the EPL |
| may only be redistributed under the EPL.<br /> <br /></li> |
| <li><strong><a name="EPLWARRANTY">Does the EPL offer any warranty with |
| regard to the Program?</strong></a><br /> No. The Program released |
| under the EPL is provided on an "as is" basis, without |
| warranties or conditions of any kind.<br /> <br /></li> |
| <li><strong><a name="GETANSWER">This document does not have the answer |
| to my question. How can I get my question answered?</a><br /> </strong> |
| You may want to check the <a href="legalfaq.php">Eclipse Foundation |
| Legal Frequently Asked Questions </a>document to see if your |
| question is answered there. If not, please send a note to the <a |
| href="mailto:license@eclipse.org">Eclipse Management Office</a> and |
| we will do our best to get back to you.<br /> <br /></li> |
| <li><strong><a name="DERIV">Some open source software communities |
| specify what they mean by a "derivative work". Does the |
| Eclipse Foundation have a position on this?</a><br /></strong> As |
| described in article 1(b)(ii) of the Eclipse Public License, |
| "...Contributions do not include additions to the Program which: |
| (i) are separate modules of software distributed in conjunction with |
| the Program under their own license agreement, and (ii) are not |
| derivative works of the Program." The definition of derivative |
| work varies under the copyright laws of different jurisdictions. The |
| Eclipse Public License is governed under U.S. law. Under the U.S. |
| Copyright Act, a "derivative work" is defined as <em>"...a |
| work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a |
| translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, |
| motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, |
| abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be |
| recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial |
| revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, |
| as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a |
| "derivative work"."</em> The Eclipse Foundation |
| interprets the term "derivative work" in a way that is |
| consistent with the definition in the U.S. Copyright Act, as |
| applicable to computer software. You will need to seek the advice of |
| your own legal counsel in deciding whether your program constitutes a |
| derivative work. <br /> <br /></li> |
| <li><strong><a name="LINK">Some free software communities say that |
| linking to their code automatically means that your program is a |
| derivative work. Is this the position of the Eclipse Foundation?</a><br /></strong> |
| No, the Eclipse Foundation interprets the term "derivative |
| work" in a way that is consistent with the definition in the |
| U.S. Copyright Act, as applicable to computer software. Therefore, |
| linking to Eclipse project code might or might not create a derivative work, |
| depending on all of the other facts and circumstances. <br /> <br /> |
| </li> |
| <li><strong><a name="EXAMPLE">I‘m a programmer not a lawyer, can |
| you give me a clear cut example of when something is or is not a |
| derivative work?</a><br /></strong> If you have made a copy of |
| existing Eclipse code and made a few minor revisions to it, that is a |
| derivative work. If you"ve written your own Eclipse Platform |
| Plug-in with 100% your own code to implement functionality not |
| currently in Eclipse, then it is not a derivative work. Scenarios |
| between those two extremes will require you to seek the advice of |
| your own legal counsel in deciding whether your program constitutes a |
| derivative work.<br /> <br /> For clarity, merely interfacing or |
| interoperating with Eclipse Platform Plug-in APIs (without |
| modification) does not make an Eclipse Platform Plug-in a derivative |
| work.<br /> <br /></li> |
| <li><strong><a name="USEEPL">I am starting my own open source software |
| project. Does the Eclipse Foundation allow me to use the EPL for my |
| project?</a><br /></strong> Yes. The EPL is an OSI-approved open |
| source license and may be used unaltered by projects regardless of |
| where they are hosted.<br /> <br /></li> |
| <li><strong><a name="CODEGEN">Many Eclipse tools and wizards use code |
| templates which are included in the application that is generated. |
| Is the code generated by these tools considered a derivative work |
| that must be licensed under the EPL?</a><br /></strong> |
| Unfortunately, there is no clear answer to this question. To the |
| extent that the code generated by a wizard is purely functional in |
| nature and therefore not the proper subject matter for copyright |
| protection, it could be argued that it is not subject to copyright |
| protection, and therefore is not a derivative work. An example of |
| that type of code would include calls to APIs or other technical |
| instructions which are dictated by functional or technical |
| requirements. Moreover, to the extent the generated code is a very |
| small part of the final overall work, there is an argument that such |
| use would be di minimus, and the final product or application should |
| not be considered to be a derivative work. Finally, to the extent |
| developers who use the generated code make many changes and additions |
| to the code, there is also an argument that the resultant application |
| is not a derivative work. Of course, these are just arguments and not |
| "bright line" tests, and therefore each position could be subject to |
| differing viewpoints. The Eclipse Foundation cannot take a position on this issue, |
| as it will ultimately be a question of the facts and circumstances |
| associated with a particular use.<br /> <br /></li> |
| <li><strong><a name="3RDPARTY">What licenses are acceptable for |
| third-party code redistributed by Eclipse projects?</a><br /></strong> |
| The Eclipse Foundation views license compatibility through the lens of enabling |
| successful commercial adoption of Eclipse technology in software |
| products and services. We wish to create a commercial ecosystem based |
| on the redistribution of Eclipse software technologies in |
| commercially licensed software products. Determining whether a |
| license for third-party code is acceptable often requires the input |
| and advice of The Eclipse Foundation’s legal advisors.<br /> <br />Please see |
| our <a href="http://www.eclipse.org/legal/licenses.php">list of the |
| most common licenses</a> approved for use by third-party code |
| redistributed by Eclipse Foundation Projects. This list is not |
| exhaustive. If you have any questions, please contact <a |
| href="mailto:license@eclipse.org">license@eclipse.org</a>.<br /> <br /></li> |
| |
| <li><strong><a name="OSICOMPLIANT">Is an OSI-compliant license a |
| requirement for all third-party code redistributed by Eclipse |
| projects?</a><br /></strong> The Eclipse Foundation fully supports the Open Source |
| Initiative’s certification of open source licenses, and the |
| Eclipse Public License is certified as such. However, there are |
| licenses for software content which meet The Eclipse Foundation’s requirements |
| for compatibility with the EPL and downstream commercial |
| re-distribution that are not OSI certified, and Eclipse projects may |
| make use of such licenses after review and approval by the Eclipse |
| Foundation.<br /> <br /> The reverse is also true: there are |
| OSI-compliant licenses are not compatible with the EPL or do not |
| permit downstream commercial re-distribution. Such licenses are not |
| used by Eclipse projects.<br /> <br /></li> |
| <li><strong><a name="GPLCOMPATIBLE">Are the Eclipse Public License |
| (EPL) 1.0 and the General Public License (GPL) compatible?</a><br /></strong> |
| The EPL 1.0 and the GPL are not compatible in any combination where |
| the result would be considered either: (a) a "derivative |
| work" (which The Eclipse Foundation interprets consistent with the definition |
| of that term in the U.S. Copyright Act ) or (b) a work "based |
| on" the GPL code, as that phrase is used in the <a |
| href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html">GPLv2</a>, |
| <a href="http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.html">GPLv3</a> or |
| the <a href="http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html">GPL |
| FAQ</a> as applicable. Further, you may not combine EPL 1.0 and GPL |
| code in any scenario where source code under those licenses are both |
| the same source code module.<br /> <br /> Based upon the <a |
| href="http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/">position</a> of the |
| Free Software Foundation, you may not combine EPL 1.0 and GPL code in |
| any scenario where linking exists between code made available under |
| those licenses. The above applies to both GPL version 2 and GPL |
| version 3.<br /> <br /></li> |
| <li><strong><a name="DUALLIC">For Eclipse projects which are |
| dual-licensed, your file headers state that the code is being made |
| available under two licenses. For example: "This program and the |
| accompanying materials are made available under the terms of the |
| Eclipse Public License v1.0 and Eclipse Distribution License v. 1.0 |
| which accompanies this distribution." What is meant by the use of |
| the conjunction "and"?</a><br /></strong> The code is being made |
| available under both of the licenses. The consumer of the code can |
| select which license terms they wish to use, modify and/or further |
| distribute the code under.</li> |
| </ol> |
| </div> |
| <!-- remove the entire <div> tag to omit the right column! --> |
| <div id="rightcolumn"> |
| <div class="sideitem"> |
| <h6>Related Links</h6> |
| <ul> |
| <li><a href="legalfaq.php">Eclipse Legal FAQ</a></li> |
| <li><a href="epl/notice.php">Eclipse Software User Agreement</a></li> |
| </ul> |
| </div> |
| </div> |
| <?php |
| $html = ob_get_contents(); |
| ob_end_clean(); |
| $App->generatePage($theme, $Menu, $Nav, $pageAuthor, $pageKeywords, $pageTitle, $html); |
| ?> |
