I am definitely not an expert on this sort of thing, but my
somewhat-educated-guesses are in-lined below. I hope that some of
the more experienced people on this list can support or refute my
thoughts below.
On 10/7/2016 2:50 PM, Ian Skerrett wrote:
For instance, the Eclipse
Leshan project re-uses/consumes/includes the Eclipse
Californium project. I’d like to understand the implication if
one project agrees to GPL compatibility but the other project
does not.
Scenerio 1: The Eclipse
Californium project specifies that their EPL license is GPL
compatible but the Eclipse Leshan does not agree to GPL
compatibility. I am assuming this means the entire Eclipse
Leshan project would not be GPL compatible. The Californium
bits would be GPL compatible but only available from the
Californium download page?
That is correct. In this example, Eclipse Leshan could not be
included in a GPL-licensed larger work, while Eclipse Californium
could be.
Scenerio 2: Eclipse
Californium specific their EPL license is NOT GPL compatible
but the Eclipse Leshan does specify EPL is compatible with
GPL. If Leshan consumers Californium, does this make the
entire Leshan project not compatible? Maybe a general
question, do all downstream EPL license technology need to be
GPL compatible to allow the aggregate to be compatible.
I believe that the answer to the general question is that yes, the
entire aggregate must be comprised of GPL-compatible licenses. Which
means that a new Eclipse project that was interested in being
GPL-compatible would have to consider its prerequisites carefully in
order to accomplish that objective.
I would also point out that in my mind an existing Eclipse project
licensed under the EPL 1.0 would have a difficult task ahead of them
if they want to become GPL-compatible under the EPL 2.0. They would
need to seek the approval of all of their past contributors in order
to make it possible. We would have to ensure that the drafting
reflects that.