https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1611828



--- Comment #13 from Georg Sauthoff <fed...@georg.so> ---
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #10)
> Well, the authors try to get compatible with GPL. Maybe ask upstream to
> upgrade.
> https://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-2.0/faq.php#h.60mjudroo8e5

FWIW, the EPL 2.0 FAQ lists 4 'major' changes. The _optional_ GPL2+
compatibility (through specifying the GPL as a secondary license) is just one
of them:

https://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-2.0/faq.php#h.a0eux401qus

Thus, the EPL 2.0 (without the secondary license option) is as GPL compatible
as EPL 1.0, i.e. it isn't GPL compatible.

cf. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclipse_Public_License#Version_2.0

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/RIIRBSJWAO3VKZVUJJZIJXPMOE2OC7OG/

Reply via email to