ie8 fix
madison

IBM passes open source license baton to Eclipse

By | April 16, 2009, 12:47pm PDT

IBM and the Eclipse Foundation have taken a stand against license proliferation by announcing today that the Common Public License (CPL) has been officially superseded by the Eclipse Public License (EPL). The CPL will no longer be considered an active open source license, but there’s an easy migration path for CPL code to transition to EPL.

Mike Milinkovich, executive director for life of the Eclipse Foundation (just kidding Mike) broke the news today in his blog. He writes:

License proliferation in open source is a real issue. It costs businesses to review multiple licenses, and the plethora of licenses can be confusing to someone starting a new open source project.

Over the past five years we have seen the Eclipse Foundation go from a good idea that might work to one of the most successful open source communities out there. We have seen the Symbian Foundation adopt the EPL as its license, thereby bringing a huge community and code base in its own right to the EPL, plus demonstrating the utility of the license well outside of the Java domain that it is best known in. More recently, Google also added the EPL as one of the licenses it supports on Google Code. It is clear that if we wanted to consolidate on one license, that the EPL made the most sense.

So what does this mean for projects such as Mondrian which are distributed under the CPL? Well, nothing has to happen — you can continue to use a dead license if you want. But because EPL has been denoted as the formal “successor version of the CPL” you can use a provision already in the CPL to switch. Section 7 says:

In addition, after a new version of the Agreement is published, Contributor may elect to distribute the Program (including its Contributions) under the new version.

EPL 1.0 is considered the “new version” of CPL 1.0 under OSI rules.

The two licenses were very close anyway. Other than their names and (previously) their Agreement Stewards, the only real difference was the way the patent license termination clause was written. That clause, which has never been invoked as far as I know, covers what happens in the event of a patent lawsuit. For more information on the relationship between the CPL and the EPL see the EPL FAQ.

Related articles:

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Ed Burnette is a software industry veteran with more than 25 years of experience as a programmer, author, and speaker. He has written numerous technical articles and books, most recently "Hello, Android: Introducing Google's Mobile Development Platform" from the Pragmatic Programmers.

Disclosure

Ed Burnette

Ed Burnette is a Manager of Mobile Development at SAS. However the postings on this site are his own and do not represent the positions, strategies, or opinions of his employer.

Biography

Ed Burnette

Ed Burnette has been hooked on computers ever since he laid eyes on a TRS-80 in the local Radio Shack. Since graduating from NC State University he has programmed everything from serial device drivers and debuggers to web servers. After a delightful break working on commercial video games, Ed reluctantly returned to business software. He currently develops enterprise software for Android phones and tablets.

In his copious spare time, Ed writes and speaks about all kinds of technology and software. His most recent books include the Eclipse IDE Pocket Guide from O'Reilly and Hello, Android: Introducing Google's Mobile Development Platform from the Pragmatic Programmers.

3
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

Why not
mattflaschen 17th Apr 2009
EPL is significantly different from both Apache and BSD because EPL has a (weak) copyleft.
0 Votes
+ -
Why not drop BOTH of them?
Roger Ramjet 16th Apr 2009
If you really want to reduce the number of open-source licenses, why not go with a "more established" OS license? You don't have to go GPL, but there is Apache and BSD. What does EPL give you that those do not?
0 Votes
+ -
Why not
mattflaschen 17th Apr 2009
EPL is significantly different from both Apache and BSD because EPL has a (weak) copyleft.
0 Votes
+ -
"EPL 1.0 is considered the ?new version? of CPL 1.0 under OSI rules."

It has nothing to do with the OSI, only with the text of the CPL license. However, personally I don't think it's a new version, as CPL explicitly requires new versions to have a different version number (and presumably be called CPL). And Eclipse was not Steward when EPL 1.0 was released.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
Click Here
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix