Re: [epl-discuss] EPL-2.0 + GPL secondary license

[Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2017-10-05 8:54 PM, Daniel Compton wrote:

From this statement "“Secondary License” means either the [GPL], including any exceptions or additional permissions as identified by the initial Contributor.", talking with other people, this was read as saying that the initial contributor could at any time add a secondary license. I didn't realise that it would require the permissions of all other contributors too.

If the Secondary License was added at the very beginning, then there is no issue. It's the re-licensing scenario.

> I suspect that means that adding GPL compatibility is well nigh impossible for Clojure at this point.

Not speaking as a representative of Clojure, but as a side note Clojure itself requires everyone who contributes to it has to sign a CA. This (I think) would give Rich Hickey the ability to relicense, or modify the license if he chose.

My apologies for making some incorrect assumptions. If that is the case, then I think you may well be right.