From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from list by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.71) id 1dDMyP-0007fg-HC for mharc-libreplanet-discuss@gnu.org; Tue, 23 May 2017 23:28:33 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39128) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dDMyN-0007fY-Jr for libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org; Tue, 23 May 2017 23:28:32 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dDMyJ-0004PU-A8 for libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org; Tue, 23 May 2017 23:28:31 -0400 Received: from bluehome.net ([96.66.250.149]:47625) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dDMyJ-0004Oi-4m for libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org; Tue, 23 May 2017 23:28:27 -0400 Received: by bluehome.net (Postfix, from userid 1037) id 8B6D17806D8; Tue, 23 May 2017 20:28:24 -0700 (PDT) From: "Jason Self" To: libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org Message-Id: <1495596504.4586@jxself.org> In-Reply-To: <11FB4C65-FB77-47F2-80D4-6A14A43C6121@dyne.org> Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 20:28:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 96.66.250.149 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.21 Subject: Re: Can we licence our Clojure (Eclipse Public License 1.0) project with the GNU AFFERO GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE? X-BeenThere: libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 03:28:32 -0000 Aspasia Beneti wrote .. > and will be secured from been used for commercial purposes I'm not entirely certain what you mean by this but I wanted to point out a part from the Free Software Definition [0]: "'Free software' does not mean 'noncommercial'. A free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution. Commercial development of free software is no longer unusual; such free commercial software is very important. You may have paid money to get copies of free software, or you may have obtained copies at no charge. But regardless of how you got your copies, you always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to sell copies." I recommend reading the entire Free Software Definition along with Selling Free Software [1]. Depending on what exactly you mean by the programing being "secured" from commercial use, it may mean that it doesn't qualify as free software to begin with. On the other hand, if you mean 'commercial' as a synonym for 'non-free' or 'proprietary' then I'd like to point you to [2]. > However it was brought to our attention that GPL and EPL are > incompatible (are they?) Yes, the FSF has it in its list of GPL-Incompatible Free Software Licenses [3]. Plus, there's also [4]. > Do you have any advice on what is the best way to go in our case? There was a discussion on a new version of the EPL [5] but it seems to have stalled. Regardless it would be good to help raise GPL compatibility as something to be addressed in the next version of the EPL. Until/less that happens perhaps some sort of exception is appropriate? It may be best to contact licensing@fsf.org for help with such a thing because it can be hard to get them "just right." [0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html [2] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.en.html#Commercial [3] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#EPL [4] https://eclipse.org/legal/eplfaq.php#GPLCOMPATIBLE [5] https://mmilinkov.wordpress.com/2013/05/31/community-review-of-the-eclipse-public-license/