[erlang-questions] A PropEr announcement
Tue Jun 14 21:48:14 CEST 2011
Ditto, GPL is completely incompatible with the (non-fsf) open licenses of
things I use. LGPL would work, but with the GPL I would never be able to
On Jun 14, 2011 8:13 AM, "James Churchman" <jameschurchman@REDACTED> wrote:
> 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
> 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?
> 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>
>> > 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
>> > 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
>> > (
>> > 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the erlang-questions