Re: EPL-2.0 and Secondary Licenses
On Oct 2, 2017, at 2:06 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn@...> wrote:As a copyleft enforcement expert, I'll comment on this part:
J Lovejoy wrote:This begs the question as to what if someone used Exhibit A and identified...
GPL-2.0+, for example, but the Program was not combined with other material
made available under GPL-2.0+?I think that becomes an enforcement issue of the license which may have
I really it's probably OT to continue this subthread further, but I'd
be very interested to hear why you think Exhibit A causes enforcement
I think at first (when I wrote the first sentence) it seemed like there could be some privity issue and I had to think through who would be suing who and for what. after thinking through that, I ended up with - it’s possible, but I surely hope unlikely! (and didn’t bother revising wording, since it is OT ;)
 I'm calling EPL-2.0-revised because there are two documents named EPL-2.0
in the wild, and the EPL-2.0-original was discussed on this list as well.
my understanding was the what is published here: http://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-2.0/ is the same as what the OSI posted and is the final, published version. I believe Wayne from the Eclipse Foundation and Richard F from OSI confirmed this as so.