On 08/08/2012 02:42 PM, Tom Marble wrote:
With your "draft EPL compatibility provision" in combination with this entry from the EPL FAQ [0] suggests that both licenses can be satisfied (i.e. interpreting "narrowing") by re-distributing any upstream EPL code under the EPL and any other additional code under CLN.
Is that an accurate interpretation?
That's kind of what I'm envisioning (if I interpreted your explanation of it correctly).
Separately, does the "Proprietary Relicensing" provision of 6.b) reference "this clause" refer only to §6.b) -or- to the entirety of §6 (preventing any distribution)?
It says "this clause b)" in the latest version in the gitorious repository. In case the idea isn't clear, it's quite simple: if you (or rather 'We' - in fact it has to be the 'original We' to be done legitimately) do what Bradley calls "proprietary relicensing", that's fine, but then copyleft-next turns into a non-copyleft license, thus permitting all licensees to do their own proprietary relicensing if they so wish.
I have a revised version I haven't pushed that I think makes this a bit clearer. As a separate paragraph:
The preceding condition shall not apply to Your Derived Work if We Proprietary-Relicense. "Proprietary-Relicense" means to commercially offer a work that would be a Covered Work had You prepared it, under a license that fails to satisfy version 1.111 of the Free Software Definition as published by the Free Software Foundation ("FSF").
- RF