I'm a long way behind, and playing email catch up. just a technical clarification:
> last year - it is problematic, as it prevents you from using well-known > bits of other open source code, because it is primarily designed to a) > avoid encumbrance of the code by other licenses of any kind and b) > ensure that changes to code in the Eclipse code base can be done without > reference to anyone else. We couldn't even use it for the openEHR > (GPL'd) java kernel because the latter uses libraries that wouldn't be > allowed by the EPL. The EPL induction process is also painful - it takes > weeks/months to get your code 'reviewed' by Eclipse people to certify it > as 'unencumbered'...meanwhile it will have changed.. I don't think (a) is a property of the EPL license itself. But it is certainly exactly how the Eclipse Foundation vets code that will be posted to the official eclipse cvs. Grahame
