| Re: [ee4j-community] Licensing Question |
On 2017-10-05 11:32 AM, John D. Ament wrote:
On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 11:13 AM Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2017-10-05 6:33 AM, John D. Ament wrote:
Mike, are you saying that EPLv2 will always be used then as a primary license? The way I'm reading it is that a project can opt to use one of these licenses (EPLv2, GPLv2) but it sounds like you're saying it will always be EPLv2.I am trying to keep things simple, because how this works is subtle.
The important point is that the ASF would always be able to use any artifacts from EE4J under the EPLv2 license. So there is no issue here. Perhaps you should ask the fine folks over at apache-legal to confirm my conclusions.
Right now EPLv2 is not listed (I'm trying to push that forward, I suspect it'll be categorized like EPLv1). My bigger concern is that if artifacts are produced that only wear GPLv2 (which is implied by the current charter) those artifacts would not be usable. I actually suspect we may be able to reconsider GPLv2+CPE to be categorized like EPL, but no guarantees yet.I do not understand how you can get to a conclusion that there will be *any* artifacts "...that only wear GPLv2...". That I can promise you will never happen. The Eclipse Foundation has never shipped code under the GPL, and we have no intention of starting now.
The way this works is that all code released from EE4J will be shipped under the EPLv2. Downstream adopters can choose to include it in a combined work under the GPLv2. But nothing originating from Eclipse will be under the GPL.
_______________________________________________
ee4j-community mailing list
ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-community