Re: EPL-2.0 and Exception
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 11:05:31AM -0400, Wayne Beaton wrote: > FWIW, it is the perspective the Eclipse Foundation that, from the > point of view of a consumer, the notion of secondary license is > effectively the same as dual licensing. We therefore encourage our > projects to use the disjunctive OR when expressing licenses. I've filed [1] to make that recommendation more discoverable for SPDX consumers. Cheers, Trevor [1]: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/pull/639 -- This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org). For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
Re: EPL-2.0 and Exception
Thanks for clarification!
Best,
Till
Am 18.04.2018 um 17:05 schrieb Wayne Beaton:
> FWIW, it is the perspective the Eclipse Foundation that, from the point of
> view of a consumer, the notion of secondary license is effectively the same
> as dual licensing. We therefore encourage our projects to use the
> disjunctive OR when expressing licenses.
>
> For content that uses the EPL-2.0 with a GPL-2.0 + Classpath Exception, we'd
> expect to see a header along these lines:
>
> /
> * Copyright (c) {date} {owner}[ and others]
> *
> * This program and the accompanying materials are made available under the
> * terms of the Eclipse Public License v. 2.0 which is available at
> * http://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-2.0.
> *
> * This Source Code may also be made available under the following Secondary
> * Licenses when the conditions for such availability set forth in the Eclipse
> * Public License v. 2.0 are satisfied: GNU General Public License, version 2
> * with the GNU Classpath Exception which is available at
> * https://www.gnu.org/software/classpath/license.html.
> *
> * SPDX-License-Identifier: EPL-2.0 OR GPL-2.0 WITH Classpath-exception-2.0
>
> /
>
> Again, we think of this from the perspective of the consumer of the content.
>
> There's more in the EPL-2.0 FAQ:
>
> https://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-2.0/faq.php#h.lgjcpvoq08a9
>
> HTH,
>
> Wayne
>
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 1:58 PM, W. Trevor King <wk...@tremily.us
> <mailto:wk...@tremily.us>> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 10:05:50AM +0200, Till Jaeger wrote:
> > Am 16.04.2018 um 21:24 schrieb W. Trevor King:
> > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 01:46:26PM +0200, Till Jaeger wrote:
> > >> EPL-2.0 exists in two forms as well (with or without Exhibit A
> > >> making it compatible to the GPL).
> > >
> > > My understanding is that the recommended approach is to use OR [1],
> > > e.g.:
> > >
> > > EPL-2.0 OR GPL-2.0 WITH Classpath-exception-2.0
> >
> > I don't think that this solution is problematic for two reasons:
>
> Based on the rest of your response, I think you *do* think the
> solution is problematic ;).
>
> > a)
> > The definition reads as follows:
> >
> > ""Secondary License" means either the GNU General Public License,
> > Version 2.0, or any later versions of that license, including any
> > exceptions or additional permissions as identified by the initial
> > Contributor."
> >
> > This would mean the Identifier looks like
> > "EPL-2.0 OR GPL-2.0 OR GPL-3.0 OR GPL-2.0 WITH Classpath-exception-2.0"
> > Somewhat confusing.
>
> Perhaps we could reduce the confusion if you linked to a particular
> Exhibit-A-style declaration? It's not clear to me why the EPL-2.0
> bothers to call out the GPL-2.0-or-later there in §1, when their
> Exhibit A calls for explicitly listing both licenses and exceptions
> for Secondary Licenses.
>
> And the “can we use OR?” idea was kicked around a lot in the thread
> landing the EPL-2.0. For example, see Richard in [1,2]. If you're
> not comfortable using OR, you'll probably need to use a LicenseRef-…,
> because the SPDX does not currently provide a license-expression
> operator specifically for the EPL-2.0 case.
>
> > b)
> > I see no reason to do that (very) differently from what we have for
> > MPL-2.0.
>
> The reason is that you can use whichever licenses/exceptions you want
> in an Exhibit A instance, and we can't add license identifiers for all
> of them. More on this in [3,4]. Folks uncomfortable with OR could
> argue for SPDX short identifiers for specific instances though, if a
> particular secondary license (e.g. GPL-2.0-or-later WITH
> Classpath-exception-2.0) was common in the wild.
>
> Cheers,
> Trevor
>
> [1]: https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2017-August/002146.html
> <https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2017-August/002146.html>
> Subject: Re: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0
> Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 16:09:51 -0400 (EDT)
> Message-ID:
> <504938038.1684282.1503691791578.javamail.zim...@redhat.com
> <mailto:504938038.1684282.1503691791578.javamail.zim...@redhat.com>>
> [2]: https://lists.spdx.org/piperma
Re: EPL-2.0 and Exception
FWIW, it is the perspective the Eclipse Foundation that, from the point of
view of a consumer, the notion of secondary license is effectively the same
as dual licensing. We therefore encourage our projects to use the
disjunctive OR when expressing licenses.
For content that uses the EPL-2.0 with a GPL-2.0 + Classpath Exception,
we'd expect to see a header along these lines:
/
* Copyright (c) {date} {owner}[ and others]
*
* This program and the accompanying materials are made available under the
* terms of the Eclipse Public License v. 2.0 which is available at
* http://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-2.0.
*
* This Source Code may also be made available under the following Secondary
* Licenses when the conditions for such availability set forth in the Eclipse
* Public License v. 2.0 are satisfied: GNU General Public License, version 2
* with the GNU Classpath Exception which is available at
* https://www.gnu.org/software/classpath/license.html.
*
* SPDX-License-Identifier: EPL-2.0 OR GPL-2.0 WITH Classpath-exception-2.0
/
Again, we think of this from the perspective of the consumer of the content.
There's more in the EPL-2.0 FAQ:
https://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-2.0/faq.php#h.lgjcpvoq08a9
HTH,
Wayne
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 1:58 PM, W. Trevor King <wk...@tremily.us> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 10:05:50AM +0200, Till Jaeger wrote:
> > Am 16.04.2018 um 21:24 schrieb W. Trevor King:
> > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 01:46:26PM +0200, Till Jaeger wrote:
> > >> EPL-2.0 exists in two forms as well (with or without Exhibit A
> > >> making it compatible to the GPL).
> > >
> > > My understanding is that the recommended approach is to use OR [1],
> > > e.g.:
> > >
> > > EPL-2.0 OR GPL-2.0 WITH Classpath-exception-2.0
> >
> > I don't think that this solution is problematic for two reasons:
>
> Based on the rest of your response, I think you *do* think the
> solution is problematic ;).
>
> > a)
> > The definition reads as follows:
> >
> > ""Secondary License" means either the GNU General Public License,
> > Version 2.0, or any later versions of that license, including any
> > exceptions or additional permissions as identified by the initial
> > Contributor."
> >
> > This would mean the Identifier looks like
> > "EPL-2.0 OR GPL-2.0 OR GPL-3.0 OR GPL-2.0 WITH Classpath-exception-2.0"
> > Somewhat confusing.
>
> Perhaps we could reduce the confusion if you linked to a particular
> Exhibit-A-style declaration? It's not clear to me why the EPL-2.0
> bothers to call out the GPL-2.0-or-later there in §1, when their
> Exhibit A calls for explicitly listing both licenses and exceptions
> for Secondary Licenses.
>
> And the “can we use OR?” idea was kicked around a lot in the thread
> landing the EPL-2.0. For example, see Richard in [1,2]. If you're
> not comfortable using OR, you'll probably need to use a LicenseRef-…,
> because the SPDX does not currently provide a license-expression
> operator specifically for the EPL-2.0 case.
>
> > b)
> > I see no reason to do that (very) differently from what we have for
> > MPL-2.0.
>
> The reason is that you can use whichever licenses/exceptions you want
> in an Exhibit A instance, and we can't add license identifiers for all
> of them. More on this in [3,4]. Folks uncomfortable with OR could
> argue for SPDX short identifiers for specific instances though, if a
> particular secondary license (e.g. GPL-2.0-or-later WITH
> Classpath-exception-2.0) was common in the wild.
>
> Cheers,
> Trevor
>
> [1]: https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2017-August/002146.html
> Subject: Re: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0
> Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 16:09:51 -0400 (EDT)
> Message-ID: <504938038.1684282.1503691791578.JavaMail.zimbra@
> redhat.com>
> [2]: https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2017-August/002148.html
> Subject: Re: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0
> Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2017 22:18:05 -0400
> Message-ID: <20170827021805.GB10855@clifford>
> [3]: https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2017-August/002136.html
> Subject: Re: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0
> Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 22:16:34 -0400
> Message-ID: <CALXWXwcrQ0FnFVwn9qDdB-XRoAE+
> jkcr4h+vmzwpjmdsmvf...@mail.gmail.com>
> [4]: https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2017-August/002145.html
> Subject: Re: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0
> Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 19:37:08 +
>
Re: EPL-2.0 and Exception
Hi Trevor, Thanks for your quick reply! Am 16.04.2018 um 21:24 schrieb W. Trevor King: > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 01:46:26PM +0200, Till Jaeger via Spdx-legal wrote: >> EPL-2.0 exists in two forms as well (with or without Exhibit A >> making it compatible to the GPL). > > My understanding is that the recommended approach is to use OR [1], > e.g.: > > EPL-2.0 OR GPL-2.0 WITH Classpath-exception-2.0 I don't think that this solution is problematic for two reasons: a) The definition reads as follows: ""Secondary License" means either the GNU General Public License, Version 2.0, or any later versions of that license, including any exceptions or additional permissions as identified by the initial Contributor." This would mean the Identifier looks like "EPL-2.0 OR GPL-2.0 OR GPL-3.0 OR GPL-2.0 WITH Classpath-exception-2.0" Somewhat confusing. b) I see no reason to do that (very) differently from what we have for MPL-2.0. > Perhaps this should be addressed in a entry in EPL-2.0.xml? > Phil had called for that not in [1] but it hasn't happened yet. I'm > happy to file a pull request adding the note later in the week if > nobody else beats me to it ;). Thanks for dealing with this issue! Best, Till > Cheers, > Trevor > > [1]: https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2017-August/002150.html > Subject: Re: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0 > Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 12:33:22 + > Message-ID: <e137e412-e386-4261-b92c-08006001c...@blackducksoftware.com> > ___ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
Re: EPL-2.0 and Exception
On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 01:46:26PM +0200, Till Jaeger via Spdx-legal wrote: > EPL-2.0 exists in two forms as well (with or without Exhibit A > making it compatible to the GPL). My understanding is that the recommended approach is to use OR [1], e.g.: EPL-2.0 OR GPL-2.0 WITH Classpath-exception-2.0 Perhaps this should be addressed in a entry in EPL-2.0.xml? Phil had called for that not in [1] but it hasn't happened yet. I'm happy to file a pull request adding the note later in the week if nobody else beats me to it ;). Cheers, Trevor [1]: https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2017-August/002150.html Subject: Re: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0 Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 12:33:22 + Message-ID: <e137e412-e386-4261-b92c-08006001c...@blackducksoftware.com> -- This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org). For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
EPL-2.0 and Exception
Dear all, Perhaps I missed that you have an Identifier for both versions of EPL-2.0. I found just EPL-2.0 whereas MPL-2.0 is splitted in MPL-2.0 MPL-2.0-no-copyleft-exception EPL-2.0 exists in two forms as well (with or without Exhibit A making it compatible to the GPL). Could you direct me to a source how to deal with the two forms of EPL-2.0? Best regards, Till -- Dr. Till Jaeger Certified Copyright and Media Law Attorney JBB Rechtsanwälte Jaschinski Biere Brexl Partnerschaft mbB Christinenstraße 18/19 | 10119 Berlin Tel. +49.30.443 765 0 | Fax +49.30.443 765 22 Sitz der Gesellschaft: Berlin | Registergericht AG Charlottenburg | PR 609 B www.jbb.de ___ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
