HN Explorer

6 comments

[ 5.9 ms ] story [ 21.6 ms ] thread
cxr
License proliferation is a problem. There is no good reason for new projects today to be using the Eclipse Public License or any other vanity license. If one of { MIT, Apache, GPL, LGPL } aren't attractive for some reason, then at least use MPL 2.0 or offer it under dual-license with one of these. Picking some goofy community license like EPL is a great way to make sure a project is seen as an option for people who inhabit that community, but nowhere else.
crazysmoove
The project in question is a plugin for the Eclipse IDE. They went with an Eclipse license. If this project is not specifically "for people who inhabit that community," then who is it for?
cxr
This may be shocking to hear, but sometimes with open source people re-use source code, which results in the useful parts existing in a new form that's different from the way it was originally published.
astura
It seems reasonable that a plug-in for an ide would want to use the same license as the ide.
dplgk
Has Eclipse been rewritten yet? Last time I used it was 10 years ago (for ActionScript 3) and it was a completely bloated, over-engineered nightmare.