Will the EPL license apply to my runnable jar (my independent code + auto genarated eclipse code)?

Question

I have one class named Count.java and is independent, not using any eclipse libraries. I am trying to create a runnable jar out of it.

While doing so I see that following eclipse package is created (org\eclipse\jdt\internal\jarinjarloader)

so basically the output jar contains

Generated x.jar file structure is

com
  |_din
     |_util
         |_Count.class //Not a derivative work of eclipse.

META-INF
  |_MANIFEST.MF

org        //autogenerated by eclipse 
  |_eclipse
     |_jdt
        |_internal
            |_jarinjarloader
                 |_JarRsrcLoader$ManifestInfo.class
                 |_JarRsrcLoader.class 
                 |_JIJConstants.class    
                 |_RsrcURLConnection.class
                 |_RsrcURLStreamHandler.class 
                 |_RsrcURLStreamHandlerFactory.class    

Clearly the generated eclipse package is covered under eclipse public license 1.0 and Clearly my code is not a derivative work of eclipse.

My question:

Can I release my overall license of the jar as my own proprietary jar?

Closest references found is

1. https://eclipse.org/legal/eplfaq.php#PROPPROD

Other closest reference are

2. https://eclipse.org/legal/eplfaq.php#MODULEDIST

Regarding derivative work

3. https://eclipse.org/legal/eplfaq.php#DERIV

4. https://eclipse.org/legal/eplfaq.php#LINK

5. https://eclipse.org/legal/eplfaq.php#EXAMPLE

Answer 1

If I understand the context correctly, I used the Eclipse IDE to create a Java project and used Eclipse's "Runnable JAR File Exporter" to export my project as a self-runnable Jar. As a result of this process, the exported Jar contains both my own original code and additional Eclipse binary code injected by Eclipse to support the self running feature. The source of an example of injected code is licensed under the EPL-1.0.

The question is then: what are my obligations in this context?

The EPL is generally considered as a "limited copyleft" license with fairly simple requirements as detailed in Section 3 in particular Section 3.iv:

iv) states that source code for the Program is available from such Contributor, and informs licensees how to obtain it in a reasonable manner on or through a medium customarily used for software exchange.

The gist of it is that a redistribution of unmodified compiled object code (e.g. the class files injected in the Jar) would just require you to provide some credits, disclaimers and a link to were to get the corresponding source code, in this case from the upstream Eclipse project(s).

To further understand the spirit of the EPL, here is a commentary from the Executive Director of the Eclipse Foundation:

[...] the EPL 1.0 was always intended to be a weak copyleft license. It was drafted such that anything which is not a derivative work could be offered under whatever terms the copyright holder desired. [...]

Here having some unmodified EPL-licensed classes included in a Jar is clearly something I would consider as a side-by-side redistribution and not a derivative work.