> On Oct 2, 2017, at 2:06 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn <bk...@ebb.org> wrote:
>
> As a copyleft enforcement expert, I'll comment on this part:
>
> J Lovejoy wrote:
>> This begs the question as to what if someone used Exhibit A and identified
>> GPL-2.0+, for example, but the Program was not combined with other material
>> made available under GPL-2.0+?
> ...
>> I think that becomes an enforcement issue of the license which may have
>> some problems,
>
>>
>
> I really it's probably OT to continue this subthread further, but I'd
> be very interested to hear why you think Exhibit A causes enforcement
> problems, Jilayne.
I think at first (when I wrote the first sentence) it seemed like there could
be some privity issue and I had to think through who would be suing who and for
what. after thinking through that, I ended up with - it’s possible, but I
surely hope unlikely! (and didn’t bother revising wording, since it is OT ;)
>
> [0] I'm calling EPL-2.0-revised because there are two documents named EPL-2.0
> in the wild, and the EPL-2.0-original was discussed on this list as well.
my understanding was the what is published here:
http://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-2.0/ <http://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-2.0/>
is the same as what the OSI posted and is the final, published version. I
believe Wayne from the Eclipse Foundation and Richard F from OSI confirmed this
as so.
Thanks,
Jilayne
_______________________________________________
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
