[erlang-questions] License Clarification about EUnit in OTP needed
Fri Feb 20 09:57:28 CET 2009
On 19 Feb 2009, at 22:40, Abhay Kumar wrote:
> 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.
I've since talked to Richard C. and he confirmed my reading
of the signs that EUnit is shipped with OTP under LGPL.
> In the meantime you could also consider etap (http://github.com/ngerakines/etap
> ) which I believe is released under the MIT license.
We are indeed looking at etap, but we'd rather go for something
that we can rely on as part of the standard OTP distribution.
> - abhay
> On Feb 16, 2009, at 5:37 AM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>> 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
>> Now this discussion took place earlier today:
>> 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.
>> erlang-questions mailing list
More information about the erlang-questions