Re: [epl-discuss] [Topic] Copyleft provisions are not obvious

[Jim Wright <jim.wright@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I think we should try to more precisely capture the scope of any coverage, ideally without using the concept of a derivative work (which is hard enough to pin down that it makes the lawyers nervous).  The best way to improve the license is to get rid of reliance on broad and vague legal concepts that require complex and error prone legal analysis to administer, IMHO.

Clearly we intend to cover (i) any modification of the source modules of a Program that is distributed under the EPL, and (ii) any module which includes code copied from an EPLed Program beyond merely using the interfaces to the code in the original Program, and beyond that, I would argue for expressly covering the dependencies of those EPL licensed items.  Expanding the virality of the code to programs or modules much beyond that to other things which merely *use* an EPL module tends to introduce uncertainty and renders the code significantly more toxic both to commercial users and to other open source projects. 

I probably haven't given this enough thought, and would need to weigh in the context of other potential revisions, but consider the following quick cut:

"Contribution" means:

a) in the case of the initial Contributor, the initial code and documentation distributed under this Agreement, and
b) in the case of each subsequent Contributor, modifications to the Program originating from and distributed by that particular Contributor.  A Contribution 'originates' from a Contributor if it was added to the Program by such Contributor itself or anyone acting on such Contributor's behalf.  Modifications qualifying as a Contribution are any source modules containing source code copied from the Program, with the exception of the constants, data structures, and application programming interfaces used to execute and/or control the Program.  Contributions do not include separate modules of software operating in conjunction with the Program but distributed under their own license agreement, provided that if the Program is modified so as to be dependent on other modules not originally a part of the Program, such newly required modules are a part of the modification for this purpose and therefore a Contribution.

This attempts to concisely capture the scope of virality as modifications of Program modules and any added modules on which the modified Program becomes dependent.  Thoughts?

 Best,
  Jim


------------------------------------- 
Jim Wright
Open Source Ombudsman
Chief Architect, Open Source Policy, 
Strategy, Compliance & Alliances
500 Oracle Parkway, 10th Floor
Redwood Shores, CA 94065 
650.607.4762
-------------------------------------


-----Original Message-----

Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 14:28:57 -0400
From: "Mike Milinkovich" <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "'Discussions about the EPL\(Eclipse Public License\)'"
	<epl-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [epl-discuss] [Topic] Copyleft provisions are not obvious
Message-ID: <021901ce66d1$89ab0e50$9d012af0$@eclipse.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Over the years, I have had more than a few people dispute the idea that the EPL is a copyleft license at all. This is because the "copyleftiness" (to invent a word) of the EPL is actually embedded in the definition of "Contribution" (emphasis mine). 

 

"Contribution" means:

a) in the case of the initial Contributor, the initial code and documentation distributed under this Agreement, and
b) in the case of each subsequent Contributor:

i) changes to the Program, and
ii) additions to the Program;
where such changes and/or additions to the Program originate from and are distributed by that particular Contributor. A Contribution 'originates' from a Contributor if it was added to the Program by such Contributor itself or anyone acting on such Contributor's behalf. Contributions do not include additions to the Program which: (i) are separate modules of software distributed in conjunction with the Program under their own license agreement, and (ii) are not derivative works of the Program.

This clearly works, but for the sake of clarity we may want to consider an alternate construction.

 

Mike Milinkovich

Executive Director

Eclipse Foundation

 <mailto:mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx> mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx

+1.613.220.3223 mobile

+1.613.224.9461 x228 office

@mmilinkov