Re: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0

Actually, after re-thinking this, I am of the opinion that the EPLv2 Exhibit A is worded correctly as is. The statement in question is: “This Source Code is also Distributed under one or more Secondary Licenses, as those terms are defined by the Eclipse Public License, v. 2.0: {name

Re: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0

Richard From: "David A Wheeler" <dwhee...@ida.org<mailto:dwhee...@ida.org>> To: "Kate Stewart" <kstew...@linuxfoundation.org<mailto:kstew...@linuxfoundation.org>>, "Gàry O'Neall" <g...@sourceauditor

Re: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0

Can confirm Richard's recollection of MPL's history around this clause. On Sat, Aug 26, 2017, 7:18 PM Richard Fontana wrote: > On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 05:10:45PM -0400, Wheeler, David A wrote: > > However, 2(e) makes me wonder: > > > e) Notwithstanding the terms of any

Re: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 05:10:45PM -0400, Wheeler, David A wrote: > However, 2(e) makes me wonder: > > e) Notwithstanding the terms of any Secondary License, no Contributor makes > > additional grants to any Recipient (other than those set forth in this > > Agreement) as a result of such

RE: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0

Regarding EPL-2.0 at ... Richard Fontana: > I think you're right about the intent. The  annoying thing here is the > ceremonial wording of Exhibit A says nothing about compatibility as such and > instead seems to merely express the traditional concept of

Re: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0

this before. :) Richard - Original Message - From: "Wayne Beaton" <wayne.bea...@eclipse-foundation.org> To: "Richard Fontana" <rfont...@redhat.com> Cc: "David A Wheeler" <dwhee...@ida.org>, "Kate Stewart" <kstew...@linuxfoun

Re: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0

org> on behalf of Wayne Beaton <wayne.bea...@eclipse-foundation.org> Date: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 2:43 PM To: Richard Fontana <rfont...@redhat.com> Cc: Kate Stewart <kstew...@linuxfoundation.org>, SPDX-legal <spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org> Subject: Re: New License/Exceptio

Re: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0

; <dwhee...@ida.org> > To: "Kate Stewart" <kstew...@linuxfoundation.org>, "Gàry O'Neall" < > g...@sourceauditor.com> > Cc: "SPDX-legal" <spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org> > Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 1:02:51 PM > Subject: RE: New Lice

Re: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0

uot;Gàry O'Neall" <g...@sourceauditor.com> Cc: "SPDX-legal" <spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 1:02:51 PM Subject: RE: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0 Kate Stewart: Possibly you're using WITH (which is restricted to only refer to except

Re: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 2:52 AM, Wayne Beaton wrote: > The EPL-2.0 has been approved by the OSI and the Eclipse Board of Directors. [...] > The wrinkle, I think, is that there is a provision in the license for > "secondary license" support. A project team may

RE: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0

Kate Stewart: > Possibly you're using WITH (which is restricted to only refer to exceptions > when you mean to use AND?? > Does the following look like what you're trying to represent? > EPL-2.0 > EPL-2.0 AND GPL-2.0 > EPL-2.0 AND (GPL-2.0 with Classpath-exception-2.0) Those are *syntactically*

Re: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0

nses and exceptions is common. > > > > Gary > > > > *From:* spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org [mailto:spdx-legal-bounces@ > lists.spdx.org] *On Behalf Of *Wayne Beaton > *Sent:* Monday, August 21, 2017 7:17 PM > *To:* Richard Fontana > *Cc:* spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org &

RE: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0

of licenses and exceptions is common. Gary From: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org [mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of Wayne Beaton Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 7:17 PM To: Richard Fontana Cc: spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org Subject: Re: New License/Exception Request: EPL

Re: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0

I thought about doing something like what's done with MPL-2.0, but my understanding is that the exceptions to GPL are important. Maybe I'm just thinking about it too hard. e.g. I believe that all of these are valid permutations... EPL-2.0 EPL-2.0 with GPL-2.0 EPL-2.0 with (GPL-2.0 with

Re: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0

Regarding the secondary license support, should it follow what's done with MPL 2.0 (SPDX has separate license identifiers for MPL-2.0 and "MPL-2.0-no-copyleft-exception"), thus something like "EPL-2.0" and "EPL-2.0-copyleft-exception"? I don't like the "MPL-2.0-no-copyleft-exception" myself