Eclipse Public License
Generated by GPT-5-miniExpansion Funnel Raw 81 → Dedup 10 → NER 7 → Enqueued 3
| Eclipse Public License | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Name | Eclipse Public License |
| Author | Eclipse Foundation |
| Published | 2001 |
| Version | 1.0, 1.1, 2.0 |
| Copyleft | weak |
Eclipse Public License
The Eclipse Public License is a free and open source software license promulgated by the Eclipse Foundation and used by projects associated with the Eclipse Integrated Development Environment and related initiatives. It was developed in the context of software collaboration involving stakeholders such as IBM, Oracle, Microsoft, and academic institutions like the University of California, Berkeley and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to balance proprietary interests with community development. The license has been considered in legal discussions involving organizations including the Free Software Foundation, the Open Source Initiative, and corporate contributors such as Red Hat, SAP, and Google.
Overview
The Eclipse Public License was created by the Eclipse Foundation to govern contributions to projects like the Eclipse IDE, Jetty, and Equinox while accommodating participants from corporations including IBM, Intel, Oracle Corporation, Microsoft, and startups associated with the Apache Software Foundation ecosystem. It is often discussed alongside licenses such as the GNU General Public License, the Apache License, the MIT License, the BSD licenses, and the Mozilla Public License in comparisons by organizations like the Open Source Initiative, the Free Software Foundation, and legal commentators from firms such as Latham & Watkins and Hogan Lovells. Adoption decisions are influenced by corporate policies at firms like Facebook, Amazon (company), Twitter, and Netflix.
License Terms and Conditions
Key provisions include requirements for distributing source code modifications and obligations concerning patent grants, drawing attention from legal teams at entities such as Microsoft Corporation, Apple Inc., IBM, Oracle Corporation, and Google LLC. The license's approach to derivative works and distribution has been compared with the treatment in the GNU Affero General Public License, the Common Development and Distribution License, and the Mozilla Public License 2.0 by legal scholars at institutions like Harvard Law School, Stanford Law School, and the New York University School of Law. Patent clauses have prompted analysis in litigation and policy reviews involving firms such as Nokia, Qualcomm, Broadcom Inc., and Ericsson.
Versions and Compatibility
Multiple versions, notably 1.0, 1.1, and 2.0, were produced with input from contributors including corporate stewards like IBM and community organizations such as the Eclipse Foundation and OpenJDK participants. Compatibility with other licenses has been a central discussion point involving the Apache Software Foundation, the Debian Project, and projects like LibreOffice and OpenStack. Legal compatibility assessments have been undertaken by firms including Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & FoxP.A., DLA Piper, and academic centers such as the Berkman Klein Center.
Adoption and Use
The license is used by numerous projects including the Eclipse IDE, Jakarta EE components, GitHub repositories maintained by organizations like Red Hat and SAP SE, and by corporate open source programs at IBM, Google, Microsoft, and Samsung. Package maintainers in ecosystems such as Maven Central, npm, PyPI, and NuGet consider EPL-licensed components when crafting compliance strategies influenced by policies from companies like Amazon Web Services, Oracle Cloud, and Google Cloud Platform. Governments and standards bodies including the European Commission and procurement offices in municipalities such as San Francisco and London have evaluated EPL-licensed software in open source procurement.
Legal and Intellectual Property Issues
Legal analyses of the license's patent provisions and contributor agreements have involved litigation or advisory contexts referencing courts and tribunals such as the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the Supreme Court of the United States, and arbitration forums used by multinational corporations including Siemens, Philips, and Honeywell. The role of contributor license agreements and assignment practices has been critiqued by legal scholars from Columbia Law School, Yale Law School, and Oxford University. Interactions with standards and intellectual property regimes overseen by bodies like the World Intellectual Property Organization and trade groups such as the Computer & Communications Industry Association have also been discussed.
Criticisms and Controversies
Critics from organizations such as the Free Software Foundation and commentators in publications like the New York Times, Wired, and The Guardian have raised concerns about the license's compatibility with strong copyleft goals exemplified by the GNU General Public License and potential ambiguities in patent language noted by legal analysts at firms including Morrison & Foerster and Covington & Burling. Disputes about corporate contributions and governance have involved high-profile actors like IBM, Oracle Corporation, and Red Hat, and have been featured in debates at conferences such as FOSDEM, OSC, and Linux Foundation events.