It's unlikely that I will be able to attend today's meeting. My apologies.
My team believes that three of the names on our list are viable as brand names. We have a little more work to do, however, so we're not quite there yet. I'm hopeful that we'll put have it all wrapped up this week and we can start the next steps.
Regarding the question regarding the difference between dual licensing and secondary licenses, the
EPL-2.0 FAQ has this to say:
[the Secondary License clause] is extremely close to dual licensing. The EPL-2.0 is the only license, until such time as it is combined and distributed with a work under the Secondary License. After such time, any recipient of the combined work can consider the content licensed under the Secondary License. The original work remains under the EPL-2.0 and is never really dual-licensed. Once a downstream adopter has received the content under the Secondary License, they can modify and further distribute it solely under the terms of the Secondary License.
Wayne
--
Wayne Beaton
Director of Open Source Projects
The Eclipse Foundation
