| <?php |
| /** |
| * Copyright (c) 2005, 2017, 2018 Eclipse Foundation and others. |
| * |
| * This program and the accompanying materials are made |
| * available under the terms of the Eclipse Public License 2.0 |
| * which is available at https://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-2.0/ |
| * |
| * Contributors: |
| * Denis Roy (Eclipse Foundation) - Initial implementation |
| * Eric Poirier (Eclipse Foundation) |
| * |
| * SPDX-License-Identifier: EPL-2.0 |
| */ |
| ?> |
| <div id="midcolumn"> |
| <h1><?php print $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> |
