I’d just like to add that you’re not really comparing like with like. The EPL is a weak copyleft license, like the LGPL, rather than the strong copyleft of the GPL. Using the GPL, particularly GPLv3 is a very, very uncomfortable thing for hardware manufacturers – it may oblige them to release the source to lots of code which they often don’t own (because they license it from third parties – e.g. optimised codecs, input methods, drivers, DRM solutions).

The EPL, or LGPL allows fairly unrestricted linking to proprietary code (there are some static linking issues with the LGPL, which might be part of the reason for the decision). However, the patent clause you mention was probably also a significant factor. It’s worth noting that the member-only Symbian Foundation License (SFL) for the code has a clause which covers patents for hardware/software combinations – going further in this area than the EPL.

Also, many of the board members of the Symbian Foundation have participated in the Eclipse project for tools at some point, so their legal departments are comfortable with the license.

I’d argue that for most people, a weak copyleft license actually gives them more freedom than a strong copyleft license like the GPL. Developers can choose to keep some of their code closed, even if it plugs in to a system framework – thus better protecting their investment in the development of it. If a user doesn’t want to use proprietary code (and there are very few of these in global terms) they can choose not to. However, if they’d like the option of using something, open or closed, then they can choose to do so. The important thing is that the core platform is fully functional without proprietary code, so those that choose to can modify and rebuild it. Choosing a weak copyleft license for the platform helps to ensure this (although doesn’t quite guarantee it) whereas a more liberal license like Android’s Apache license makes it much less likely.

The downside of this decision is that it currently prevents cross-fertilisation of code from one system to the other (e.g. porting of drivers – although the frameworks are very different so this isn’t that easy). I’d like us to explore the possibility of dual licensing all or part of the platform under the GPL or LGPL (which has a GPL conversion clause). Not sure if that will get anywhere though.

Hope that helps!