Am 21.11.18 um 19:30 schrieb Thorsten Glaser: [...] > This is wrong, see the NOTICE file: > > | ## Declared Project Licenses > | > | This program and the accompanying materials are made available under the > terms > | of the Eclipse Public License v. 2.0 which is available at > | http://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-2.0. This Source Code may also be made > | available under the following Secondary Licenses when the conditions for > such > | availability set forth in the Eclipse Public License v. 2.0 are satisfied: > GNU > | General Public License, version 2 with the GNU Classpath Exception which is > | available at https://www.gnu.org/software/classpath/license.html. > > This means the licence is EPLv2 “period”. > > GPLv2 with Classpath Exception is listed as Secondary License, > which, in EPLv2 parlance, may _not_ simply be applied to any > given work just because the permission is there, but only if > certain extra conditions are met, namely, being combined, in > a single work, with other code under such licence. > > As such, it’s explicitly *not* a dual licence.
[...] Please inform yourself about the legal terms of the EPL-2.0 and what a "Secondary License" means in this regard. One of the reasons to move to version 2.0 is to allow recipients of the EPL-2.0 to choose the Secondary License to make their programs compatible with the GPL-2(+). They are explicitly allowed to change the license to the Secondary License. It is depressing when people file RC bugs about licenses without even reading the license terms!
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
