There are a few things i find very strange about the Eclipse project.

Acoording to the CPL you can take a CPL program and add your own stuff and sell it, without your program coming under the CPL. Like what ibm does with WebSphere. WebSphere neither free nor open source like Eclipse, on top of which WebSpehere is built.

but what is stranger is that anyone else excluding ibm can do the same stuff with eclipse. (add plugins & sell as their own product).

So why does IBM fund the eclipse fund the project? And why do some developers develop it for free when someone else can just use it without permission and sell it and they even need to open their stuff's source?

I mean Sun can add a few plugins of their own and we can have a NetBeans ide on top of Eclipse. And if Sun wants they can sell it too!

So why does IBM allow this? Isnt this more like just sort of giving someone permission to steal your work??? :?
Posted on 2004-11-06 11:50:17 by clippy
maybe cause eclipse is just icky :P
Posted on 2004-11-06 12:40:01 by Hiroshimator
What exactly is the diff between the BSD license vs the CPL ?
Posted on 2004-11-10 14:41:19 by clippy
I support Hiro's statement - I had heard some really good words about eclipse, but when I had to try it (as a PalmOS IDE), I was like
:shock: :o :?
speed? being awesome? beautiful? with enough features? Those who said those words must be cavemen :roll:
only the CVS compare is something nice, but I use WinDiff anyway, which shows the changes in a bettwer way :P
Posted on 2004-11-10 23:22:06 by Ultrano
Well it is slow, but yes it does have lot of features. Much more than even Visual Studio.
Posted on 2004-11-11 07:29:04 by clippy
yuck cvs :p

use subversion ;)

I like ultra-edit, it's a great product. (too bad I'm not on windows)
Posted on 2004-11-13 13:18:28 by Hiroshimator