EPL 2.0 vs. GPL 2.0

Attribute	EPL 2.0	GPL 2.0
License Type	Eclipse Public License	GNU General Public License
Version	2.0	2.0
Open Source	Yes	Yes
Compatibility	Compatible with GPL	Compatible with EPL
Derivative Works	Must be under EPL	Must be under GPL

Introduction

When it comes to open source licenses, two of the most popular choices are the Eclipse Public License (EPL) 2.0 and the GNU General Public License (GPL) 2.0. Both licenses have their own set of attributes and restrictions that developers need to consider when choosing which one to use for their projects. In this article, we will compare the key features of EPL 2.0 and GPL 2.0 to help you make an informed decision.

License Scope

The EPL 2.0 is a copyleft license that is specifically designed for software distributed as part of the Eclipse platform. It allows developers to modify and distribute the code under the same license terms. On the other hand, the GPL 2.0 is a strong copyleft license that applies to all software derived from GPL-licensed code. This means that any modifications or derivative works must also be released under the GPL license.

Compatibility

One of the key differences between EPL 2.0 and GPL 2.0 is their compatibility with other open source licenses. The EPL 2.0 is considered to be more permissive and is compatible with a wider range of licenses, including the GPL. This means that developers can combine EPL-licensed code with code licensed under the GPL without any issues. On the other hand, the GPL 2.0 is not as flexible and may have compatibility issues with certain licenses, making it more restrictive in terms of code reuse.

Derivative Works

Another important aspect to consider when choosing between EPL 2.0 and GPL 2.0 is how they handle derivative works. The EPL 2.0 allows developers to create and distribute derivative works under different licenses, as long as the original EPL-licensed code is also made available. This provides more flexibility for developers who want to incorporate EPL-licensed code into their projects. In contrast, the GPL 2.0 requires all derivative works to be released under the GPL, which can limit the options for developers who want to use GPL-licensed code in their projects.

Patent Rights

One of the key differences between EPL 2.0 and GPL 2.0 is how they handle patent rights. The EPL 2.0 includes a patent license that grants users the right to use any patents that are necessary to implement the licensed software. This provides added protection for developers who want to use EPL-licensed code in their projects. On the other hand, the GPL 2.0 does not include a patent license, which means that developers may need to negotiate separate patent agreements with contributors if they want to use GPL-licensed code in their projects.

Enforcement

When it comes to enforcement, the EPL 2.0 and GPL 2.0 take different approaches. The EPL 2.0 includes a termination clause that allows the licensor to terminate the license if the licensee fails to comply with the terms of the license. This provides a mechanism for enforcing the license and ensuring that developers adhere to the license terms. In contrast, the GPL 2.0 relies on copyright law to enforce the license, with violations potentially leading to legal action. This can make enforcement more complex and time-consuming for developers using the GPL license.

Conclusion

In conclusion, both the EPL 2.0 and GPL 2.0 have their own set of attributes and restrictions that developers need to consider when choosing a license for their projects. The EPL 2.0 is more permissive and flexible, allowing developers to create derivative works under different licenses and providing a patent license for added protection. On the other hand, the GPL 2.0 is a strong copyleft license that requires all derivative works to be released under the GPL and may have compatibility issues with other licenses. Ultimately, the choice between EPL 2.0 and GPL 2.0 will depend on the specific needs and goals of the project, so it is important to carefully evaluate the features of each license before making a decision.