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