[License-review] New Exhibit A for EPLv2

[Tom Marble]

Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich at eclipse-foundation.org> writes:
> [...] The original version stated that 
> “This Source Code _*is *_also Distributed [...]

I'm struggling to understand how the license text regarding
Secondary Licensing works in context of your statements here:

https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2017-June/003051.html

Regarding point 1 it seems that the "Initial Contributor" has
the outsized authority to add Exhibit A, but that could happen
at any time (i.e. there's no requirement in the EPL 2.0 condition
for adding Exhibit A "when they start").

Point 2 seems to be inconsistent to the language of the license.
The license suggests that if the "Initial Contributor" adds
Exhibit A then "then the Program may be made available under the
terms of such Secondary Licenses" (§3.2.a.ii). How or why would
permission of previous contributors be required?

And, if indeed, permission of previous contributors is required
what benefit does the EPL 2.0 provide over classical dual
licensing that was already possible under EPL 1.0?

Please advise,

--Tom