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

Richard Carlsson richardc@REDACTED
Fri Feb 20 12:36:56 CET 2009

Jan Lehnardt wrote:
> 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.

I tend to prefer copyleft-licenses for my work, but as I see that
there are some valid issues with using LGPL for things in the standard
distribution, I have been discussing the matter with the OTP folks.
Some kind of change may be underway.

The EPL, meanwhile, is simply not usable for anyone except Ericsson
(or if you wish to hand over all rights to Ericsson), at least
the way I read it. Plain MPL 1.1 would work as a substitute for EPL,
but I think I'd rather use the Apache License 2.0. Does anyone know
about any problems with either of those?


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list