![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Section Later Versions specifically says "in my opinion" about something.
Fix, anyone?
Thanks. -- Amir E. Aharoni 06:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
The "Compatibility with the GPL" section is written TERRIBLY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.214.131.12 ( talk • contribs) 00:41, 20 July 2006
The GPLv3 similarly requires a grant of patent license, so it's possible that the EPL and the GPLv3 are compatible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.183.110 ( talk) 04:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
It's clear that this was written in 2006, when version 2 was the latest version of the GPL. According to the FSF, the current version of the GPL is still incompatible with the EPL, but for a completely different reason (choice of law clause). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.28.14.219 ( talk) 03:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Eclipse Public License. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
The EPL 2.0 is now released. Here is the announcement.
FSF has not yet added it to its license list or released a statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuagay ( talk • contribs) 15:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Eclipse Public License. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
In the Compatibility section is the following sentence:
"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."
There are two instances of the pronoun, "they" in that sentence, and it is not clear whether "they" refers to the distributor or the recipient. Does anyone have clarification to offer or a suggested alternative wording? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.229.59.142 ( talk) 14:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't edit in software / computer science wikipedia, so do go ahead and discard this idea if it doesn't make sense for a genre-specific reason I'm not seeing, but I wonder if this might be better off being trimmed significantly and merged into the article on the foundation itself? I assume this is a notable topic that could plausibly have its own standalone wp article, but there's been an "update" tag on this since 2015, so I'm not sure how useful this is to anyone. A cleaner description that's less likely to go out of date, with a link to further information on their own website, might be a more useful and stable long-term solution. -- asilvering ( talk) 00:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Section Later Versions specifically says "in my opinion" about something.
Fix, anyone?
Thanks. -- Amir E. Aharoni 06:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
The "Compatibility with the GPL" section is written TERRIBLY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.214.131.12 ( talk • contribs) 00:41, 20 July 2006
The GPLv3 similarly requires a grant of patent license, so it's possible that the EPL and the GPLv3 are compatible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.183.110 ( talk) 04:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
It's clear that this was written in 2006, when version 2 was the latest version of the GPL. According to the FSF, the current version of the GPL is still incompatible with the EPL, but for a completely different reason (choice of law clause). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.28.14.219 ( talk) 03:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Eclipse Public License. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
The EPL 2.0 is now released. Here is the announcement.
FSF has not yet added it to its license list or released a statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuagay ( talk • contribs) 15:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Eclipse Public License. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
In the Compatibility section is the following sentence:
"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."
There are two instances of the pronoun, "they" in that sentence, and it is not clear whether "they" refers to the distributor or the recipient. Does anyone have clarification to offer or a suggested alternative wording? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.229.59.142 ( talk) 14:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't edit in software / computer science wikipedia, so do go ahead and discard this idea if it doesn't make sense for a genre-specific reason I'm not seeing, but I wonder if this might be better off being trimmed significantly and merged into the article on the foundation itself? I assume this is a notable topic that could plausibly have its own standalone wp article, but there's been an "update" tag on this since 2015, so I'm not sure how useful this is to anyone. A cleaner description that's less likely to go out of date, with a link to further information on their own website, might be a more useful and stable long-term solution. -- asilvering ( talk) 00:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)