Add the EPL-2.0

[waynebeaton]

No description provided.

[wking]

I haven't gone through and compared this with the text submitted to the mailing list, but I assume it matches up.

We might want a link from the commit message to somewhere that shows the SPDX accepting the license (I'll dig up a link to the mailing-list post later today), to help people trying to find that later.

[wking]

If we don't have any notes on this license, I think we should leave these off (they're optional).

[wking]

We would prefer UTF-8 for the apostrophe ('). See #314.

[waynebeaton]

I'll remove the empty note and replace the apostrophes.

In the process of converting the HTML document into the license schema, I ended up converting a blockquote into a paragraph (p). Does it instead make more sense to using a list/item combination?

Out of curiosity, why not just wrap the existing HTML in a CDATA block? Converting to the license schema seems unnecessary at best and potentially problematic (in, e.g., cases like mine when the original license text uses a blockquote).

[goneall]

Out of curiosity, why not just wrap the existing HTML in a CDATA block?

When we convert the XML to the HTML for the spdx.org/licenses site, we add styling for the <alt> and <optional>. This would be challenging to process if we were working from the original HTML.

The tool that generates the website does have hooks for passing in original HTML if we wanted to go that route - we would just lose the optional and alt highlighting.

[wking]

Out of curiosity, why not just wrap the existing HTML in a CDATA block?

Besides the issues mentioned by @goneall, I also spent a bit of time working on XHTML embedding and couldn't get validation working. See here and later comments in that issue mentioning “XHTML”.

Converting to the license schema seems unnecessary at best and potentially problematic (in, e.g., cases like mine when the original license text uses a blockquote).

EPL-2.0 seems to use <blockquote> for Exhibit A, but I'm a bit confused by its placement:

$ curl -s 'https://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/epl-2.0/EPL-2.0.html' | grep -B6 -A2 '<blockquote>'
    <h2 id="exhibit-a">Exhibit A &ndash; Form of Secondary Licenses Notice</h2>
    <p>&ldquo;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: {name license(s),
        version(s), and exceptions or additional permissions here}.&rdquo;
    </p>
    <blockquote>
      <p>Simply including a copy of this Agreement, including this Exhibit A
        is not sufficient to license the Source Code under Secondary Licenses.

I'd have expected:

<blockquote>
  <p>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: {name license(s),
    version(s), and exceptions or additional permissions here}.
  </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Simply including a copy of this Agreement, including this Exhibit A…

Are you sure the upstream blockquote is in the right place?

[wking]

This should use https://opensource.org/licenses/EPL-2.0, since that's the OSI's canonical location:

$ curl -sLI http://www.opensource.org/licenses/EPL-2.0 | grep '^HTTP\|Location'
HTTP/1.1 301 Moved Permanently
Location: http://opensource.org/licenses/EPL-2.0
HTTP/1.1 301 Moved Permanently
Location: https://opensource.org/licenses/EPL-2.0
HTTP/1.1 200 OK

I'd like to use HTTPS for eclipse.org too (https://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-2.0/), although they allow both HTTP and HTTPS without redirects.

[jmini]

Thank you.

What are the next steps in order for the license to appear on the website? https://spdx.org/licenses/

[goneall]

What are the next steps in order for the license to appear on the website?

We are working on a release of the license list (version 3.0) with a target release date before the end of the year.

I'll publish a preview on the website https://spdx.org/licenses/preview a few days prior to the actual release. I'll send an email out to the legal distribution list when the preview site is available.

[wking]

I finally got around to comparing this with the upstream text, and the only differences I see are curly/straight quotes (which I'm fine with ignoring) and then this line, which has double quotes here, but is using curly single quotes upstream:

$ curl -s https://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-2.0/ | grep '(.notices.)'
      (‘notices’) contained within the Program from any copy of the Program which

@waynebeaton, do you know if upstream intended to use single quotes there? Or is the intention to use double (curly) quotes?

[waynebeaton]

As it was delivered to me, the text ony version uses straight double quotes, and the HTML version uses single curly quotes. That must have happened in translation.

My vote is to ignore.

[jlovejoy]

curly v. straight quote doesn't matter for matching purposes: see 5.1.3 https://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/matching-guidelines

[wking]

curly v. straight quote doesn't matter for matching purposes…

I agree. I just wanted to make sure we represent the upstream preference for single vs. double (even though that doesn't impact matching, it's still nice to be consistent). But as @waynebeaton points out, upstream uses double in their text/plain version and single in their text/html version, so (without a consistent upstream pattern to follow) it doesn't really matter which version we use here.