eclipse-collections
eclipse-collections copied to clipboard
eclipse
Update license from deprecated EPL 1.0 to EPL 2.0
👍 If you intend to get on a simultaneous release train in the future, this will be a requirement.
So long as we don't follow this advise :+1:
We must retain EDL. There are a large number of organizations that don't touch copyleft.
@waynebeaton Can a project be dual-licensed under EPL 2.0 and EDL 1.0? EPL 2.0 with Secondary License Clause will not work for us. I did not see this particular option addressed in the FAQ on licensing. https://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-2.0/faq.php#epl-general
Both Apache and FINOS Foundation classify EPL 1.0 and EPL 2.0 as Category B licenses:
https://apache.org/legal/resolved.html https://community.finos.org/docs/governance/software-projects/license-categories/
EDL 1.0 (BSD-3-Clause) is classified as Category A
Updating to the EPL-2.0 would result in the same sort of dual licensing that you're doing with the EPL-1.0 now, just with the newer version of the license.
EPL 2.0 with Secondary License Clause will not work for us.
Dual licensing (which is what you're doing) is different from secondary licensing. Secondary licensing only applies in cases where you want to link EPL content with GPL-2.0+ content.
“Secondary License” means either the GNU General Public License, Version 2.0, or any later versions of that license, including any exceptions or additional permissions as identified by the initial Contributor.
Dual licensing with the EDL (a BSD-3-Clause licence) makes this sort of linking work without requiring the secondary licence.
Dual licensing with the EDL (a BSD-3-Clause licence) makes this sort of linking work without requiring the secondary licence.
I'll take this as a yes. What do we need to do to update to dual licensed under EPL 2.0 and EDL 1.0?
I should have led with yes.
Update your file headers and license files, and send a note to the EMO asking them to update their records.
FWIW, the EPL has a provision that grants you permission to update to a later version of the licence without needing to get approval from anybody. It's good form, however, to make sure that the project committers are aware of what you're doing and get a chance to ask questions.
It's good form, however, to make sure that the project committers are aware of what you're doing and get a chance to ask questions.
@nikhilnanivadekar @motlin @mohrezaei @prathasirisha @itohiro73
EC Committers, any questions or thoughts please add. This will be a somewhat cumbersome upgrade since we would need to update all file headers.
I notice that at least a few of your file headers do not have an SPDX-License-Identifier; this would be a good opportunity to add them.
This will be a somewhat cumbersome upgrade since we would need to update all file headers.
You should be good by doing simple file search/replace for adding the license changes and the SPDX identifiers in multiple separate steps. You have a checkstyle rule in place which will complain about all files that you missed, as long as you update the java.header file first.
Be aware that the "Eclipse only" part also has some license notices, like in feature.xml files. And finally, things like pom.xml might need updates.