I recently worked with the team at GitHub to provide more information about 0BSD. More info about Landly's 0BSD now appears on choosealicense.com and, subsequently, will appear on GitHub license drop-downs (takes time). Beyond that you can also find more info about 0BSD on Wiki which I added after you asked this question.
Other places to seek information ...
Kyle E. Mitchell on /dev/lawer makes a compelling argument against using no-attribution licenses like 0BSD, et al.:
Some recent licenses, like 0BSD, omit attribution conditions. There is literally nothing users have to do to use or reuse work under these licenses. That’s the ideal of “anti-licenses” like WTFPL and also public domain dedications: Anyone ...
There is at least one reason to avoid 0BSD: it's not popular.
Meaning that most likely it was not reviewed by most corporation's law departments. If I were to use or contribute to 0BSD code at work I'll have to chase Google lawyers to clear it.
Apache 2 is generally recommended as trouble-free.
I have already written on the subject of relicensing; if you read the whole of that question you can see my answer reflects a viewpoint which is widely-, but far from universally-, held.
From that viewpoint I don't see a problem with what you want to do. In the first place, the Ritchey EPL v2 does not require you to convey either the code itself, or ...
Copyright James Daniel Marrs Ritchey. This material was created for
'Recommended license for small script without an attribution clause?',
but can also be alternatively obtained from
under the terms of any of the following licenses: Ritchey Permissive