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 +0000
> Message-ID: <9C019F31-919B-4CD1-A881-7588937C7964@
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spdx-legal mailing list
> Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
> https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
>
>
--
Wayne Beaton
Director of Open Source Projects
The Eclipse Foundation
_______________________________________________
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
