which license to use for software using components with GPL, LGPL and EPL?

[Ian Vernon]

>You don't have any.  Your project has type A blood, and you have given it a
transfusion of type B blood.  As of now, it is on life support.
>You have three choices:
>1) Get a hairy lawyer who can talk you out of your current situation.
>His best bet is probably to negotiate with the owners of the GPL code,
although if it's the FSF, they're most likely *not* going to want to be
helpful.  (We have a few suitably hirsute 
>lawyers on this list, notably Larry Rosen.)
>2) Start reimplementing either the EFL or the GPL modules.  Best practice
is to boil down the function of those modules to an English-language
description, and hand that description to >some newly hired folks who
haven't even seen any part of the code they are going to replace.
>3) Cross your fingers and hope.
>Note that these options are not incompatible, and in fact you should
probably consider doing all three at once.


Thanks. The GPL components are derivative works which releases their
software under GPL same is true with the EPL and GPL components. Although
all external components only comprises less than 5% of the actual software.
We would prefer to have the software under GPL, although it seems it is now
depend which components are more critical then the license shall follow. On
another note all licenses seems to be compatible if released as commercial;
having said that, in the worse case the software is forced to be released as
commercial instead of open source. Should it not that the community should
work hand in hand to protect copy left instead of developers being burdened
with incompatibility issues?