[erlang-questions] License Clarification about EUnit in OTP needed

[Abhay Kumar]

i tried to bring this up a little while ago but haven't heard back  
about it yet (http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/2008-December/040313.html 
). That tweet from Mickaël is promising.

In the meantime you could also consider etap (http://github.com/ngerakines/etap 
) which I believe is released under the MIT license.

- abhay

On Feb 16, 2009, at 5:37 AM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:

> Hi,
>
> if this is not the right place to ask, please let me know.
> The OTP team is reading here, so I think it's good to
> make this a public discussion :)
>
> The CouchDB team is looking at adopting EUnit for
> unit testing. Since EUnit is now shipped with OTP since
> R12B-5, we're happy to adopt it. Since we are with
> the ASF there are some licensing restrictions we need
> to take care of. The easiest for us is if we could treat EUnit
> as yet another standard OTP library released under the
> EPL license.
>
> The R12B-5 source still includes all LGPL boilerplate
> and the COPYING file. We understand that this means
> that while EUnit ships with OTP, the license remains
> LGPL.
>
> Now this discussion took place earlier today:
>
>   http://twitter.com/janl/status/1214902936
>   http://twitter.com/mickael/status/1215085264
>   http://twitter.com/janl/status/1215153939
>
> We're wondering if the LGPL mentions in the source are
> mere leftovers or if they are still valid.
>
> In any case, it would be nice to see a definite and
> public statement about this that we can link and refer
> to in the future. Both readings of the license-possibility
> came up in our thread and I am sure we're not the
> only ones.
>
> Cheers
> Jan
> --
>
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions