Define (default) license for shared code repositories

[MarkusTiede]

@MMore and I would prefer a (weak) copy-left license by default; reasons:

• avoid code base fragmentation : copy-left
• avoid commercial usage clashes : weak

Proposal: EPL-v2 (OSI / FSF approved)

[MMore]

@MarkusTiede is it possible to use licenses like GPL-v3 within the Eclipse foundation?

[MarkusTiede]

@MMore - yes; the EPL-v2 has the concept of „Secondary License“ which is specifically made for GPL-v2 and higher combination scenarios. We used this e.g. as a license proposal for OpenPrevo.

[MarkusTiede]

However GPL is then the secondary license (with EPL-v2 being first) and the consumer may choose by himself.

[MarkusTiede]

I think it's a (very) good compromise to try to avoid the tragedy of anticommons (which might apply with the EPL as e.g. patents are explicitly allowed) and tragedy of commons (which might (somehow) apply with the GPL).

[MarkusTiede]

Gaining (informal) feedback from the OSI as well as Eclipse Foundation the most preferred license with respect to flexibility (being consumend / adopted without major constraints from a copy-left) at the moment is Apache-2.0. We will also very likely take recommend this as a default license for Baloise wide activities.

[MarRothm]

We at https://github.com/aposin also decided to use Apache-2.0.