Yes — but the combined work must be released under the more restrictive license.
Eclipse Public License 2.0 is a file-level (or library-level) copyleft license. You can include Eclipse Public License 2.0 files in a MIT License project; the Eclipse Public License 2.0 files retain their copyleft obligation (changes must be released), while the project at large can stay MIT License. Keep file boundaries clear.
| License | Family | Patent grant |
|---|---|---|
| Eclipse Public License 2.0 (EPL-2.0) | weak-copyleft | Yes |
| MIT License (MIT) | permissive | No (implicit at most) |
Eclipse Public License 2.0: Module-level copyleft used heavily in the Java ecosystem.
MIT License: Short, very permissive; minimal obligations beyond preserving the copyright notice.
If you found this page because you're trying to figure out whether shipping a particular dependency is safe, the answer above is a starting point — not a substitute for reading the actual licenses or talking to a lawyer when stakes are high.
LicenseHound walks every transitive dependency in your repo, maps each to its SPDX license, and flags pairs like this one in PR comments. The CLI is free; the team dashboard is paid.