<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2017-09-15 12:22 PM, Tom Marble
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:57dr2v8vsmn.fsf@cerise.info9.net">
<pre wrap="">Mike Milinkovich <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mike.milinkovich@eclipse-foundation.org" moz-do-not-send="true"><mike.milinkovich@eclipse-foundation.org></a> writes:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">
<pre wrap="">[...] The original version stated that
“This Source Code _*is *_also Distributed [...]
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">I'm struggling to understand how the license text regarding
Secondary Licensing works in context of your statements here:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2017-June/003051.html" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2017-June/003051.html</a>
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?</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>We are going to be instructing all Eclipse Foundation projects
re-licensing from EPL-1.0 to EPL-2.0 that if they want to add a
Secondary License they must request the approval of all subsequent
contributors, and we'll be advising other projects to do so as
well.</p>
<p>The initial Contributor for any particular piece of code is the
person/entity that first put it under the EPL (presumably the
original author, but maybe not). So, it is intended that it is
the decision of the initial Contributor whether or not a Secondary
License is authorized. If multiple discrete independently
authored works get combined into a single project, there may be
multiple initial Contributors. They would all need to agree to add
the Secondary License if they wanted it to apply to the entire
project because any single initial Contributor doesn't have the
right to add the Secondary License to code that they received only
under the EPL. (These permissions may be taken care of by having
notices which state that subsequent contributions to the project
are all under the same terms.)<br>
</p>
<p>There may be many Contributors that don't have any copyright
ownership in the project code. Maybe they only distributed the
program, or only contributed minor bug fixes that weren't
complicated enough to meet copyright requirements. Their
agreement to add a Secondary License would not technically be
required. However, since enabling the Secondary License is
effectively an additional grant, clearly any copyright holder
needs to have granted those rights to allow the code to be
distributed under the Secondary License. In other words, the
initial Contributor cannot enable the Secondary License for code
they don't own, or otherwise grant rights they do not have.<br>
</p>
<p>For community reasons, we view adding the Secondary License as a
community decision, which should be approved by the community as a
whole, including all of the code contributors.</p>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
Mike Milinkovich<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mike.milinkovich@eclipse-foundation.org">mike.milinkovich@eclipse-foundation.org</a><br>
(m) +1.613.220.3223<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.eclipsecon.org/europe2017"><img
src="https://www.eclipsecon.org/europe2017/sites/default/files/ece%202017%20130%20x%20130%20speaking_0.png"
alt="EclipseCon Europe 2017" height="130" width="130"
border="0"></a></div>
</body>
</html>