2

I want to sell an Electron desktop application that uses a JS library under the Eclipse Public License 1.0 license. One of the conditions is to "disclose source".

It's not totally clear to me what it means: do I have to provide the source code of the entire application along with the binaries (so the application has to became open source as well), or do I have to disclose only source code related to that library (so anybody can easily modify that specific part). If the latter is true, how should I proceed it in practice, considering it's an Electron application ?

I plan to use that EPL 1.0 library "as is", there will be no modifications (eg: source code changes) made to it.

EDIT: after some research, I found a question that seems to be very similar to mine. It looks like what is important is how the library is used and if it's considered as a "derivative work" or not.

1

This is where many people get confused with EPL 1.0: The definition of 'Contribution' and 'Contributor' are different. 'Contribution' appears to mean what is commonly known as creating a derivative work, while 'Contributor' means the person or organization distributing the program (changed or unchanged). This confusion is probably one of the reasons why they made EPL 2.0.

Your 'Edit' in the question points to this other question and answer which points to an FAQ of Eclipse Foundation related to EPL 2.0, so this is not actually applicable to your situation. The correct link would be this page.

The conclusion, however, is the same. As you see here you can use the library without the requirement to provide your own source code. Just follow all the steps in the 'Requirements' of the license. The term 'Program' here refers to the code of the JS library you are using.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.