Re: [triquetrum-dev] Dual License Triquetrum under EPLv1.0 and EPL-1.0-B

[Wayne Beaton <emo@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I've copied license@xxxxxxxxxxx on this thread. They're the licensing experts.

My apologies to those who are participating via the project dev list: it's possible that you'll be dropped from the follow-up communication. Christopher, please plan to post a summary of the discussion.

Wayne

On 02/02/16 05:36 PM, Christopher Brooks wrote:

Hi Wayne,

Jay Jay Billings suggested that I email you about this.

I started a bug at https://github.com/eclipse/triquetrum/issues/46, the contents are below.

Please let me know what your thoughts are and if I should instead start a Bugzilla bug.

Thanks,

_Christopher

The University of California (UC) has a problem with the patent clause in EPL. The concern is that if a UC employee (someone who has signed the UC patent agreement, which includes funded students) unknowingly contribute software that is covered by a patent held elsewhere in the UC system, then there is a conflict. One workaround is to have UC contributors sign an individual contributor agreement.

Jay pointed out that there is the possibility of dual licensing Triquetrum as other projects have proposed doing and presumably done so.

https://projects.eclipse.org/proposals/eclipse-advanced-visualization-project says:

Licenses:
Eclipse Distribution License 1.0 (BSD)
Eclipse Public License 1.0

Legal Issues:

As far as the proposers know, no one owns the trademark to the project name.

Many, if not all, of the third-party dependencies in the initial contribution have already received
preliminary approval in Contribution Questionnaires (CQs) filed by existing Eclipse projects.

We have selected both EDL and EPL for licenses because technology such this will most likely be in
demand by many scientific institutions, some of which may not want to use it under the terms of the
EPL. The project lead is willing to provide a justification letter for the IP-Team, Executive Director and
the Board if required. For its part of the initial contribution, Oak Ridge National Laboratory/UT-Battelle,
LLC approves of the dual licensing.

The EDL-1.0-BSD at https://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php states:

Eclipse Distribution License - v 1.0

Copyright (c) 2007, Eclipse Foundation, Inc. and its licensors.

All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
Neither the name of the Eclipse Foundation, Inc. nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. 

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

To close this bug, we need to:

1) Get the OK to use both licenses
2) Define what text goes in to files
3) Update the license files.

For 1) Get the OK to use both licenses, https://eclipse.org/legal/ says:

Eclipse Distribution License (EDL): The BSD license used by some Eclipse projects which require
dual-licensing along with the EPL. Other than for example code or build scipts, use of this license by
an Eclipse project is on a case-by-case basis and requires unanimous approval of the Board of
Directors.

For 2) Define what text goes in to files
Some guidance may be found at https://eclipse.org/legal/eplfaq.php#DUALLIC:

For Eclipse projects which are dual-licensed, your file headers state that the code is being made
available under two licenses. For example: "This program and the accompanying materials are made
available under the terms of the Eclipse Public License v1.0 and Eclipse Distribution License v. 1.0
which accompanies this distribution." What is meant by the use of the conjunction "and"?
The code is being made available under both of the licenses. The consumer of the code can select
which license terms they wish to use, modify and/or further distribute the code under.

For 3) Update the license files, this can be done if and when 1 and 2 are done.

-- 
Christopher Brooks, PMP                       University of California
Academic Program Manager & Software Engineer  US Mail: 337 Cory Hall
CHESS/iCyPhy/Ptolemy/TerraSwarm               Berkeley, CA 94720-1774
cxh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, 707.332.0670           (Office: 545Q Cory)

--
Wayne Beaton on behalf of the Eclipse Management Organization
@waynebeaton
The Eclipse Foundation