|
On 2017-10-05 11:32 AM, John D. Ament
wrote:
On
2017-10-05 6:33 AM, John D. Ament wrote:
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.
I am trying to keep things simple, because how this works
is subtle.
The important point is that the ASF would always be able
to use any artifacts from EE4J under the EPLv2 license. So
there is no issue here. Perhaps you should ask the fine
folks over at apache-legal to confirm my conclusions.
Right now
EPLv2 is not listed (I'm trying to push that forward, I
suspect it'll be categorized like EPLv1). My bigger concern
is that if artifacts are produced that only wear GPLv2
(which is implied by the current charter) those artifacts
would not be usable. I actually suspect we may be able to
reconsider GPLv2+CPE to be categorized like EPL, but no
guarantees yet.
I do not understand how you can get to a conclusion that there
will be *any* artifacts "...that only wear GPLv2...". That I can
promise you will never happen. The Eclipse Foundation has never
shipped code under the GPL, and we have no intention of starting
now.
The way this works is that all code released from EE4J will be
shipped under the EPLv2. Downstream adopters can choose to include
it in a combined work under the GPLv2. But nothing originating
from Eclipse will be under the GPL.
|
