Re: [ee4j-community] Licensing considerations for EE4J implementation pr

[Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2018-01-23 11:38 AM, Mrinal Kanti wrote:

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 9:59 PM, Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 2018-01-23 11:21 AM, Werner Keil wrote:

So with Vert.x or JNoSQL, should they ever apply EPL2, does one license have to be "primary" and the other "secondary" or can they also remain side-by side as they are now with those projects?

Yes, those projects can move from EPL-1.0+APACHE-2.0 to EPL-2.0+APACHE-2.0 any time that they want.

Does it mean that we can have both Secondary license and dual license at the same time? As far as I understand, the Secondary license clause is meant to replace the dual-license scenario. And as per https://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-2.0/faq.php#h.lza2unrion3b only GPLv2 and later versions are permissible in the secondary license clause which is precisely my point in Solution Option B of my original post. In EPL1, it was possible to have dual license with Apache2. But the secondary clause in EPL2 supports only GPL2 or later.

It is possible to have a project which is licensed EPL-2.0 with the Secondary License GPL-2.0 and MIT and BSD and Apache and Mozilla and whatever. The EPL-2.0 Secondary License is simply a way to make a particular combination easier to do. It does not negate the ability to add additional licenses.

EPL-2.0 with a Secondary License does not require any additional review by the EMO or the Board. Adding an additional license like Apache requires unanimous approval of the Eclipse Foundation Board of Directors. 

--
Mike Milinkovich
mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(m) +1.613.220.3223