On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Wayne Beaton
My understanding is that the Secondary Licensing provision in the EPL-2.0 isWayne:
This helps a lot to better understand the EPL terms.
I cannot use EPL 2.0-licensed code under a Secondary license
unless I combine it with some other code using that Secondary license.
And only its is only when I combine that the Secondary license terms may
apply to the combo. Otherwise, only the the EPL-2.0 applies.
My take is that a license expression can never replace nor capture all
details of licensing. This what the license texts are for. The license
just a concise, imperfect but mightily handy summary of the licensing.
Therefore, even though this may not be it exactly, I still think we
can use existing
license expressions OR constructs for this case and with no change needed.
An expression such as EPL-2.0 OR GPL-2.0 is enough to tell me there is some
choice. Then when I read the actual text and notice, I get the details
terms. If I elect the GPL-2.0 choice without reading the licensing
first then I am
foolish at best. We cannot prevent foolishness. If I build a tool that automates
such a choice, I can easily have a special case where the EPL-2.0 shows up
as a choice with another license and process this as a special case.
Be it here or in the much-talked-about case of FSF or-later-or-only-or-may-be
licensing nuances, an expression can never entirely replace the actual
and notices. I think this is just fine this way: a name alone can
never capture nor
convey all the nuances and attributes of a thing.