[copyleft-next] Compatibility with Eclipse Public License.

Richard Fontana fontana at sharpeleven.org
Wed Aug 8 19:07:48 UTC 2012


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



More information about the copyleft-next mailing list