https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1611828 --- Comment #13 from Georg Sauthoff <fedora@xxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #10) > Well, the authors try to get compatible with GPL. Maybe ask upstream to > upgrade. > https://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-2.0/faq.php#h.60mjudroo8e5 FWIW, the EPL 2.0 FAQ lists 4 'major' changes. The _optional_ GPL2+ compatibility (through specifying the GPL as a secondary license) is just one of them: https://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-2.0/faq.php#h.a0eux401qus Thus, the EPL 2.0 (without the secondary license option) is as GPL compatible as EPL 1.0, i.e. it isn't GPL compatible. cf. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclipse_Public_License#Version_2.0 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/RIIRBSJWAO3VKZVUJJZIJXPMOE2OC7OG/
