On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 11:05:31AM -0400, Wayne Beaton wrote:
> FWIW, it is the perspective the Eclipse Foundation that, from the
> point of view of a consumer, the notion of secondary license is
> effectively the same as dual licensing. We therefore encourage our
> projects to use the disjunctive
uncomfortable with OR could
> argue for SPDX short identifiers for specific instances though, if a
> particular secondary license (e.g. GPL-2.0-or-later WITH
> Classpath-exception-2.0) was common in the wild.
>
> Cheers,
> Trevor
>
> [1]: https://
an Exhibit A instance, and we can't add license identifiers for all
> of them. More on this in [3,4]. Folks uncomfortable with OR could
> argue for SPDX short identifiers for specific instances though, if a
> particular secondary license (e.g. GPL-2.0-or-later WITH
> Classpath-excepti
r in the week if
> nobody else beats me to it ;).
Thanks for dealing with this issue!
Best,
Till
> Cheers,
> Trevor
>
> [1]: https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2017-August/002150.html
> Subject: Re: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0
> D
-legal/2017-August/002150.html
Subject: Re: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 12:33:22 +
Message-ID: <e137e412-e386-4261-b92c-08006001c...@blackducksoftware.com>
--
This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org).
For more
Dear all,
Perhaps I missed that you have an Identifier for both versions of EPL-2.0. I
found just EPL-2.0 whereas MPL-2.0 is splitted in
MPL-2.0
MPL-2.0-no-copyleft-exception
EPL-2.0 exists in two forms as well (with or without Exhibit A making it
compatible to the GPL).
Could you direct me
