Rosen said he is still trying to figure out what the wording of the license actually means. "You have to make sure that all the words fit together, and right now, Im nor sure they actually do, so its useful to have all these committees looking at it," he said. Rosen also wants to know how and why this license differs from others, and is looking forward to hearing from the FSF about that. He unsure that all the language in the license has legal effect and what the drafters are hoping the legal effect of the license will be.
Mike Milinkovich, the executive director of the Eclipse Foundation, stressed that code licensed under the EPL (Eclipse Public License) remain EPL code under any condition.Milinkovich has previously told eWEEK that Eclipse is hoping that Version 3 of the LGPL (Lesser GPL) can be made compatible with the EPL to the point where LGPL code could be used within Eclipse projects. That would "dramatically improve the status quo in our view. Unfortunately, only time will tell if this will come to pass, as the revision process for the LGPL has not even started yet," he said. With regard to the proliferation of open-source licenses, Ratcliffe said there are some 56 such software licenses and the issue of how those can be linked together remains a challenge. But the OSI will be announcing some solutions on this front in the next four to six weeks, he said. Read here about how the OSI plans to deal with license proliferation. But, while the draft GPL 3.0 license is more flexible than its predecessor, Ratcliffe questioned whether it goes far enough to cover the increasing number of companies putting in open-source software stacks. Check out eWEEK.coms for the latest open-source news, reviews and analysis.
Mike Milinkovich, the executive director of the Eclipse Foundation, stressed that code licensed under the EPL (Eclipse Public License) remain EPL code under any condition.