Would it be possible for the charter to declare only EPL v2 as the default license? My concern is that having a purposely incompatible license (GPLv2) we lead to potential licensing issues. For instance, this will preclude The Apache Software Foundation from being able to use the software.
For those unaware, GPLv2 is incompatible due to the patents claims within it. EPL is actually closer to AL in this manner.
John
On 2017-10-01 9:00 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
> I noticed in the proposal for the new TLP that the license to be used
> is dual license of EPL 2.0 and GPL 2.0 w/ CPE. Putting aside that GPL
> 2 and patents issue, I'm wondering if these licenses are a hard
> requirement for all sub-projects and if other licenses are considered
> for use?
The statement in the charter is specifying the default. Other licenses
can be used with the approval of the PMC, and in certain circumstances
the Eclipse Foundation Board of Directors.
_______________________________________________
ee4j-community mailing list
ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-community
