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 <notes> 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 +0000 > 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
