On 2017-10-04 11:48 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
> 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,
You are misunderstanding the licensing.
The EPLv2 has a concept called "Secondary Licenses" which allows
downstream adopters to combine EPLv2-licensed code with GPL-licensed
code and distribute the combination under the GPL. If an adopter does
not want to use the Secondary License (e.g. GPLv2 plus Classpath
Exception), then this entire construct can be simply ignored.
The end result is that the Apache Software Foundation will be able to
consume artifacts from EE4J purely under the EPLv2 without any concerns.
Mike, are you saying that EPLv2 will always be used then as a primary license? The way I'm reading it is that a project can opt to use one of these licenses (EPLv2, GPLv2) but it sounds like you're saying it will always be EPLv2.
Hope that helps!
Thanks.
_______________________________________________
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
