GPLv3 Update
I thought I would mention a few early thoughts on the GPLv3 progress, and the impact it may have on the Eclipse community. (In other words, I am most emphatically not talking about the merits of the Free Software Foundation (FSF)’s proposed GPL revisions in general.) Janet Campbell from the staff of the Eclipse Foundation is actively involved as a member of “Committee A“, so we are participating in the revision process.
As I am sure many people have read, the GPLv3 is now out in draft form, and the Free Software Foundation has stated that EPL compatibility is a goal of theirs. Which is great news.
However, it is important to realize that when the FSF refers to “compatibility”, they mean that GPLv3 code can consume Eclipse Public License (EPL) code. Not the other way around. So it’s a one-way street and Eclipse projects will remain unable to consume GPL code. That said, the ability for GPL projects to re-distribute EPL-licensed code would be an important and positive development.
Definitely the new GPLv3 terms for dealing with patents goes a long way to making the licenses compatible. That was the one area that the FSF themselves had identified as an issue between the GPLv2 and the EPL. However, the Foundation is still doing an evaluation of compatibility, as we owe it to our own community to be completely satisfied that we agree with the FSF’s position. Early results indicate that there are still some areas that need to be worked on.
We are also looking forward to the process for revising the LGPLv3. If that license can be made compatible with the EPL to the point where LGPL code could be used within Eclipse projects, the status quo could be dramatically improved. Unfortunately, only time will tell if this will come to pass, as the revision process for the LGPL has not even started yet.
Life at Eclipse 
Mike, could you twiddle your Blogger options so that you post the full text of your entries, instead of just the first 200 characters or so?
pmuellr
February 24, 2006 at 2:19 pm
Actually, I do that on purpose, because personally I find it annoying when great big long posts show up on PlanetEclipse.What do others think?
Mike Milinkovich
February 24, 2006 at 2:22 pm
+1 to full text
Anonymous
February 24, 2006 at 3:39 pm
I find very long posts (> 3-4 para) are annoying. Very short posts (1 sentence) get more annoying, as the topic is clear but not the stance on the topic. So far your balance has worked for me.
vineet sinha
February 24, 2006 at 5:03 pm
I prefer reading blogs that syndicate full text. It makes it much easier when reading in an external news system. As for news syndication services like Planet Eclipse (which is where I pick this up from) I find it very useful that they syndicate long feeds.I also find it easier to read feeds in my newsreader than I do to go to an external site. For one thing, I travel by train a lot so I often only have the syndicated version with me. If I read something, I might like to find out more but invariably if it’s a short feed I just skip it. If it’s a long feed, and it makes good points that I want to comment on, I save it and then comment when I’m connected again.Lastly, I find that the newsreader gives me a better style than most people’s websites do; instead of an uber-thin column of text down the middle of the page with huge white gaps either side, I get the text flowed as the HTML developers originally intended; that is, based on the width of my browser and not based on the setting in a .css file.In any case, had I not been connected at the time I read this syndicated post via PlanetEclipse, I’d have just passed it over and wouldn’t have given you any feedback. 🙂
AlBlue
February 25, 2006 at 3:37 am
I find it *really* annoying when some posts on planet eclipse are more than one page long. I want to get a quick oveverview and get into detail when I want it.
Anonymous
February 27, 2006 at 3:30 am