License (GPL) is incompatible with Eclipse license (EPL) without adding exceptions

[fabioz]

See: http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/using-the-gpl-for-eclipse-plug-ins for details (otherwise, no one can really distribute startexplorer, as you're unable to make eclipse itself GPL).

[basti1302]

Thanks for pointing that out. I must admit, that I really did not pay any attention when choosing the license, let alone think about the consequences. Which license would you suggest instead of GPL? Just change to EPL?

I'm also like this license here very much: http://www.wtfpl.net/about/
It is extremely simple (big advantage, IMO) and it matches quite exactly how I would like the startexplorer code to be handled - anyone can do anything with it, I don't mind.

[fabioz]

Just to point out:

• GPL should be Ok if you add the exceptions (and it mandates anyone changing your code has to redistribute the code).
• If you want to give people more freedom, the OSI-compliant license would be MIT (basicaly, the same as the WTPL license you pointed out, but a bit more standard).
• EPL is the license Eclipse plugins use most (and it's a middle ground among GPL and MIT).

So, from what you're saying, I'd choose the MIT license (http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT)

[basti1302]

I have changed the license. Despite your advice, I chose WTFPL. Reasons: It's much shorter and straight to the point.