5

The Eclipse Public License is not entirely clear for me. As I understand it, anyone who redistributes a Library whose code is licensed under the EPL is considered to be a Contributor. It then states that you are not required to redistribute source-code but you must make mention of where to obtain it.

Other websites have said you do not need to release the source code of your project unless you specifically modify parts of the EPL-licensed program, but from reading the license, it seems to indicate otherwise.

If I would like to use Library X in my Java program where I link the library to my project via the Build Path and then redistribute Library X with my program, am I required to allow the obtaining of the source code or not, "Ask A Lawyer" advice aside.

Improve this question

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
3

The EPL license basically says:

  1. The software is authorized to be used with commercial, closed-source applications and derivative works. It is not copyleft; i.e. it doesn't compel you to release the source code of your closed-source application.

  2. You agree to use and distribute the software in such a way that it limits the liability of all contributors as much as possible.

  3. If you do distribute the source code, you do so in a manner that respects the terms of the Eclipse license, and readily identifies the original contributors. Generally speaking, this means retaining all of the original notices in the source code.

Improve this answer
1
  • 3
    It is copyleft, because it requires you to release any changes you made to the EPL code while working on your main app. The difference from GPL is that it's a commercial-friendly copyleft, requiring you only to make those changes available and only if you distribute your commercial app. And if you made no changes, no source code to release.
    – berezovskyi
    Commented Dec 18, 2017 at 13:17

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.