On Sep 19, 2017, at 1:29 PM, Wayne Beaton <wayne.beaton@...> wrote:

The Eclipse Foundation is trying to weave SPDX into our processes. 

This is a new project that needed to hit the ground running and we really wanted to include an SPDX entry in the header. I figured that if I didn't include it in the initial commit, then it'd be a fight later to get the project team to add it.

I guessed that "EPL-2.0" would be a safe best-guess.

FWIW, "EPL-2.0" is actually not entirely correct for this project; this project uses our Secondary Licenses feature to add compatibility with GPL-2.0 + classpath exception + assembly exception. I figured getting even just the base SPDX code was better than nothing (I was less confident guessing at how you're going to represent the secondary licenses).

Wayne

On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Dennis Clark <dmclark@...> wrote:

Hi SPDX Legal Team,

With all the excitement (depending on your point of view, of course) about the latest OpenJ9 announcements, I went over to check it out on github, and discovered a very interesting notice at

https://github.com/eclipse/openj9/blob/master/LICENSE

The interesting part being this:  "SPDX-License-Identifier: EPL-2.0 OR Apache-2.0"   followed by further useful details. 

i guess we really ought to try to get moving on EPL-2.0 whenever we can.

Regards,

Dennis Clark

nexB Inc.

_______________________________________________
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@...
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

--

Wayne Beaton

Director of Open Source Projects

The Eclipse Foundation

_______________________________________________
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@...
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal