Some Eclipse Foundation services are deprecated, or will be soon. Please ensure you've read this important communication.

Bug 520113

Summary:	Determine SPDX code for EPL-2.0 "Secondary Licenses" Exception
Product:	Community	Reporter:	Wayne Beaton <wayne.beaton>
Component:	License	Assignee:	Generic Inbox <license>
Status:	RESOLVED FIXED	QA Contact:
Severity:	normal
Priority:	P3	CC:	mike.milinkovich, sharon.corbett
Version:	unspecified
Target Milestone:	---
Hardware:	PC
OS:	Linux
See Also:	https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=527842
Whiteboard:
Bug Depends on:
Bug Blocks:	519789

Description Wayne Beaton

2017-07-24 12:02:10 EDT

(In reply to Wayne Beaton from bug #519789 comment #0)
> I expect that the SPDX code will be "EPL-2.0"; let's try to consistently use
> that code. Note that we'll need to sort out how to represent the GPL
> exception. There's some information in the SPDX documentation [1], but we'll
> have to work with the SPDX community to sort out the best way to represent
> this.

The "GPL exception" was introduced to Mike as such [1]: "we would do the opposite of the approach taken by the MPL 2.0, where code is GPL-compatible by default, and which could be over-ridden by a notice file. I would propose that by default the EPLv2 is *not* GPL-compatible, but the Initial Contributor for a project could add a notice file adding in the necessary terms to be GPL-compatible."

I've included this particular quote because of the reference to the MPL-2.0 exception. SPDX considers the the MPL-2.0 exception as a separate license with this code: "MPL-2.0-no-copyleft-exception" and this title: "Mozilla Public License 2.0 (no copyleft exception)"

The EPL-2.0 text defines "Secondary License":

--
“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.
--

I'm pretty sure that we have two options regarding SPDX codes. We can either regard these as effectively different licenses with separate codes (like MPL-2.0 and MPL-2.0-no-copyleft-exception), or we can regard it as a single license and attach exceptions (e.g. the SPDX code for GPL with the classpath exception is "GPL-3.0 WITH Classpath-exception-2.0"). 

Before we engage with the SPDX team, it would be good to understand how we regard these differences. Do we regard this as a single "GPL exception", or is it potentially multiple (version-specific) GPL exceptions? Or am I thinking too hard about this?

I'm leading toward it being something like "EPL-2.0" and "EPL-2.0-secondary-license-exception" (something far more concise would be better; "EPL-2.0-gpl-exception"?).

[1] https://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists//epl-discuss/msg00093.html

Comment 1 Mike Milinkovich

2017-07-24 14:01:59 EDT

(In reply to Wayne Beaton from comment #0)
> Before we engage with the SPDX team, it would be good to understand how we
> regard these differences. Do we regard this as a single "GPL exception", or
> is it potentially multiple (version-specific) GPL exceptions? Or am I
> thinking too hard about this?
> 
> I'm leading toward it being something like "EPL-2.0" and
> "EPL-2.0-secondary-license-exception" (something far more concise would be
> better; "EPL-2.0-gpl-exception"?).
> 
> [1] https://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists//epl-discuss/msg00093.html

The EPL 2.0 allows for specific versions of the GPL, and for specific license exceptions to be specified. So I would be worried that "EPL-2.0-gpl-exception" would not provide enough specificity. A copyright holder could specify GPL v3 only for example. Or they could specify GPL v2 + classpath exception.

So --- without having thought about this much --- I think that we might need to go with an approach that permits "EPL-2.0 WITH GPL-2.0 WITH Classpath-exception-2.0"

Comment 2 Wayne Beaton

2017-08-17 17:10:47 EDT

Instructions for requesting a new license are here:

https://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/request-new-license

I'll start this process next week.

Comment 3 Wayne Beaton

2017-08-21 17:26:20 EDT

I've initiated the process with the SPDX team.

https://github.com/spdx/license-list/issues/16

Comment 4 Wayne Beaton

2018-01-04 10:51:37 EST

The discussion ended up in the SPDX Legal mailing list.

That discussion seemed to stall here:

https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2017-October/002246.html

--
TL;DR
The existing license expression syntax, “OR” covers the Exhibit A option, if observed. No need to add new expression or identifier.
--

I'm satisfied with this. Any concerns?

Comment 5 Wayne Beaton

2018-01-12 11:40:39 EST

(In reply to Wayne Beaton from comment #4)
> I'm satisfied with this. Any concerns?

I'll take that as no.