[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [p2-dev] License approval
- From: John Arthorne <arthorne.eclipse@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 17:16:28 -0400
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; b=Cim+qd0lQqbSs0302dadMnqIbw6ws14URC+EUkDMA3dzfJ6tC9CSHMjeATiUUC7tIq VWaAgw5Td0SHNBnOySqQyijXjFNRzaSSyt352xItnVJnOfqM85Jd8R0KwfDqSrzpnXQ9 wMD7by4iKm+bF/+1sY8ZWbWVPOKMXfCXvEgJI=
I don't think it's that simple. What you are actually asked to accept when you install from eclipse.org repositories is the Eclipse Software User Agreement. This is not quite the same as a license (although it refers to a number of licenses). If someone obtains the same content from another provider (such as a commercial product built on the Eclipse platform), they are subject to the EPL but I don't know if they ever had to accept the Eclipse SUA. So I guess what you are asking is whether someone running EPL-licensed code implicitly agrees to the SUA. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know the answer to that. But, knowing lawyers they would probably say, "you should ask them every time regardless", just to be on the safe side.
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 4:30 AM, Thomas Hallgren <thomas@xxxxxxx>
Why must a user approve the EPL license over and over again when installing content from Eclipse.org? Can't that approval be regarded as implicit given that he uses the Eclipse IDE?
IANAL but to me it's rather obvious that nobody will disapprove this particular license ever. If someone isn't happy using it, how can they continue using Eclipse?
p2-dev mailing list