fix: Correct copyleft classification for EPL and CeCILL licenses#1343
Open
JASGRIEmb wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
fix: Correct copyleft classification for EPL and CeCILL licenses#1343JASGRIEmb wants to merge 1 commit into
JASGRIEmb wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
Signed-off-by: JASON GRIESHABER <jason.grieshaber@mercedes-benz.com>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
This PR updates the metadata of several license definitions to better reflect their actual copyleft scope and obligations.
Changes
Replaced same-license with same-license--file.
Replaced same-license with same-license--file.
Removed the network-use-disclose condition ("Network use is distribution"), as the license does not impose AGPL-style network source code disclosure requirements.
Rationale
The changes align the license metadata more closely with the actual obligations defined by the respective license texts:
For EPL 1.0 and EPL 2.0, copyleft obligations apply to modifications of EPL-covered files rather than to an entire larger work. The same-license--file condition appears to more accurately describe this behavior than same-license.
See FAQ 4.22: https://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-2.0/faq/
For CeCILL 2.1, the license requires source code disclosure when distributing covered software (see Article 5.3.2, "Distribution of Modified Software"), but it does not appear to contain an AGPL-style provision that treats network interaction with the software as distribution or otherwise requires source code disclosure solely because the software is made available over a network. As a result, the network-use-disclose condition appears to overstate the obligations imposed by the license.
Jason Grieshaber, jason.grieshaber@mercedes-benz.com, Mercedes-Benz AG
Contribution licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license