- Eclipse Public License
infobox software license
name = Eclipse Public License
version = 1.0
copyright = Public Domain
date = ?
OSI approved = Yes
Debian approved = ?
Free Software = Yes
GPL compatible = No
copyleft = No
linking = Yes
The Eclipse Public License (EPL) is an
open source softwarelicense used by the Eclipse Foundationfor its software. It replaces the Common Public License(CPL) and removes certain terms relating to patent litigation.
The Eclipse Public License is designed to be a business friendly free software license, and features weaker
copyleftprovisions than contemporary licenses such as the GNU General Public License(GPL). The receiver of EPL-licensed programs can use, modify, copy and distribute the work and modified versions, in some cases being obligated to release their own changes.cite web | url = http://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-v10.html | title = Eclipse Public License - v 1.0 | accessdate = 2006-09-12 ]
The EPL is approved by the
Open Source Initiative(OSI)cite web | url = http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical | title = OSI approval | accessdate = 2007-06-21 ] and the Free Software Foundation(FSF).
The EPL 1.0 is not compatible with the GPL, and a work created by combining a work licensed under the GPL with a work licensed under the EPL cannot be lawfully distributed. The GPL requires that " [any distributed work] that ... contains or is derived from the [GPL-licensed] Program ... be licensed as a whole ... under the terms of [the GPL] .", and that the distributor not "impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted". The EPL, however, requires that anyone distributing the work grant every recipient a license to any patents that they might hold that cover the modifications they have made. Because this is a "further restriction" on the recipients, distribution of such a combined work does not satisfy the GPL.cite web | url = http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html | title = Various Licenses and Comments about Them | accessdate = 2006-09-20 ]
The EPL, in addition, contains a patent retaliation clause, which is incompatible with the GPL for the same reasons. But GPL version 3 also has a patent retaliation clause in section 10.
The EPL allows the developers of changes and additions of EPL-licensed code to make their own license under any type of license they choose for the changes and additions separately. However, the EPL-licensed part of their derivative software product should be licensed under EPL license, but the developers can have private right about the portions of changes and additions. cite web| url = http://www.eclipse.org/legal/eplfaq.php| title = Eclipse Public License (EPL) Frequently Asked Questions| accessdate = 2006-09-12 ]
In EPL, as with every
free software licence, the contributor can charge money for programs which the contributor changed and added to the program. Also, there are no restrictions on providing source code. The contributor can make, use, sell, offer to sell, import and transfer the contribution.
The significant difference between the GPL and EPL is that EPL allows the developers to make their own license for the portions of their improvements or additions separately from the EPL-licensed code, if the EPL-licensed portions of their derivative software product are licensed under the EPL license agreements. In other words, the developers can keep the improvements or additions as proprietary. In addition, EPL was based on the CPL, cite web |url=http://www.eclipse.org/legal/CPL2EPLTransitionPlan.pdf |title=CPL to EPL Transition Plan |date=2006-09-12 ] but there are some differences between the two licenses:
* The Eclipse Foundation replaces IBM as the Agreement Steward in the EPL
* The EPL patent clause is revised by deleting the sentence from section 7 of the CPL
* [http://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-v10.html The Eclipse Public License, version 1.0]
* [http://www.eclipse.org/legal/eplfaq.php Eclipse Public License FAQ]
* [http://www.opensource.org/licenses/eclipse-1.0.php EPL on OSI]
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.