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

Jan Lehnardt jan@REDACTED
Sun Feb 22 15:19:40 CET 2009

On 20 Feb 2009, at 12:36, Richard Carlsson wrote:

> 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?

I don't know of any issues with the Apache License 2.0. My clear vote
would be in its favour.


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list