EUnit 2.0 alpha testers wanted
Sun Apr 23 13:18:29 CEST 2006
On Sunday, 23 de April de 2006 10:32, Richard Carlsson wrote:
> Pupeno wrote:
> > Are there any chances of releasing under both licences, the ERLANG PUBLIC
> > LICENSE and a GPL-compatible one ? like GNU General Public License or GUN
> > Leaser General Public License ?
> > Thank you.
> Yes, that is possible. I usually use LGPL for my hobby projects, but
> since the existing eunit 1.0 was published under EPL, I kept that for
> the time being. We'll see.
You should ask for permission to the original author of EUnit to be able to
release under another license.
> Maybe this is a good time to ask people in general: do you prefer the
> EPL or the LGPL? Does it affect your ability to use it in your work?
> (I know that some corporate types are irrational about all things GPL,
> and might not accept the LGPL either.)
For me, the ELP is problematic. I use Erlang because it is worth it; but
having to make exceptions in all my header to link against an EPL is not
nice. I would preffer for everything to be released under GPL-compatible
licenses (GPL, LGPL and others like BSD), after all, you are not loosing
anything by using GPL or LGPL *instead* of EPL, I think. And releasing under
both is trivial, there are lot of projects that do that.
Pupeno <> (http://pupeno.com)
 I would hesitate to use a library that is not GPL-compatible and I would
hesitate to give back code to a non-GPL-compatible library. Sometimes there's
real worry because there are a lot of nasty licenses out there and sometimes
it is just because I don't wan to read yet-another-license. I know GPL, I
know how it works, I trust the people making it and backing it up.
 If you do it, I'd recommend you to ask for permission and releasing under
GPLv2 or latter; so you'd be able to move to GPLv3.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the erlang-questions