[erlang-questions] A PropEr announcement

[James Churchman]

Could the lgpl not be chosen instead? Would this not allow the tests to be distributed along as they don't ship a custom version of propEr as somebody else states?
Also is it really the case that the tests could not be distributed, or more a case that it is totally fine to distribute the tests along as the person receiving the tests downloads proper themselves? the code that is not tests would still run fine.

Also what was the original reasoning behind choosing the gpl in this case? 

Regards

James


also +1 to try to convince Kostis to release PropEr with a better license!

On 14 Jun 2011, at 13:33, Eric Merritt wrote:

> I talked with Kostis about this at the erlang factory. He said he is going to provide the exception to the gpl for open source projects. I think he just has not had time to do the actual work.
> 
> On Jun 14, 2011 7:26 AM, "Richard Carlsson" <carlsson.richard@REDACTED> wrote:
> > On 06/14/2011 02:02 PM, Ulf Wiger wrote:
> >> On 14 Jun 2011, at 01:09, Vik Olliver wrote:
> >>> On 14/06/11 11:01, Francis Joanis wrote:
> >>>> I have a question about the GPL licensing of the tool itself:
> >>>> since it is GPL, doesn't it require to make the written tests
> >>>> themselves and to some extent the application under test GPL as
> >>>> well?
> >>>
> >>> Only if you distribute the tests. If you keep them to yourself,
> >>> you don't owe anyone anything. The GPL respects privacy.
> >>
> >> This could become an obstacle to adoption similar to what's been seen
> >> with Quviq QuickCheck: people who have Open Source projects need to
> >> publish (=distribute) test suites as well. Just as it's not very
> >> helpful to distribute test suites that require an expensive tool,
> >> people might be reluctant to publish PropEr-based tests if it
> >> requires them to convert to GPL.
> >>
> >> Kostis did say that they would make an exception for OSS projects. I
> >> could not find any such exception when quickly scanning the repos.
> >>
> >> BR, Ulf W
> > 
> > As I have remarked before on this list, I believe the normal GPL (all 
> > versions) cannot be used for Erlang modules, because the dynamic loading 
> > and linking of classes/modules at runtime is not considered to be any 
> > different from static linking - at least according to the FSF.
> > 
> > The standard Erlang library modules and the runtime system BIFs are 
> > published under the Erlang Public License, which is an even more 
> > restrictive variant of MPL. The MPL is not compatible with GPL 
> > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Public_License#Compatibility_with_GPL), 
> > due to some of its restrictions, so it should follow that the EPL is 
> > also not compatible.
> > 
> > If you want to enforce copyleft in your code, but not force it on other 
> > libraries that link with your code, you can use LGPL instead of GPL. 
> > (Preferably, use v3, which is compatible with Apache License 2.)
> > 
> > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-java.html
> > 
> > /Richard (not a lawyer)
> > _______________________________________________
> > erlang-questions mailing list
> > erlang-questions@REDACTED
> > http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20110614/ca79ec08/attachment.htm>