Re: [epl-discuss] Next Round of Proposed Revisions to the EPL

[Jim Wright <jim.wright@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Till, on your question on Section 2, perhaps the answer is simply to add the express right to prepare derivative works, provided that any portions of such derivative work which are comprised of the Program in whole or in part remain subject to the terms and conditions of the license?  Let’s say a court decides that subclassing does create a derivative work.  The license then provides that what they did is permitted and does not apply the requirements of Section 3 to the subclass…?  The trick there is that unless we expressly provide that it *doesn’t*, in theory the restrictions of the license still apply to those portions that come from the original.  Maybe the answer is to expressly say these are not subject to the restrictions of the license.  

Here’s a hack (though this may go better elsewhere) at putting this in the definition of Modified works (based on my earlier work-in-progress def. with a couple of other tweaks):



"Modified Works" shall mean any work, in Source Code or Executable Code form, comprising an addition to, deletion from, or modification of the contents of the Program, or any new file in Source Code form that contains any contents of the Program other than its interfaces (including without limitation anything in a header file or inline function or similar constructs). For the purposes of this Agreement and notwithstanding the foregoing, Modified Works shall not include works that remain separable from, and merely link or bind by name to, subclass, or otherwise include such interfaces of the Program or Modified Works thereof, and such works are deemed not subject to the restrictions of this license.


This would also require you to add an express prepare derivative works grant to Section 2 but if you did, you could subclass, and if I’m thinking about this correctly in my not-quite-caffienated-yet state, the subclass would be deemed licensed and not a Modified Work, and could be distributed on its own (without the parent class) under arbitrary terms.  Thoughts?

 Best,
  J



 <snip>

> 
> I understand your point. However, there seems to be the following problem:
> 
> 1.
> The definition of "Modified Work" does not include subclassing and other
> forms of linking. The reason is that you want to exclude such scenarios from
> the definition of "Contribution" and, thus, from the Copyleft of the EPL. I
> have no objections in this regard.
> 
> 2.
> Section 2 ("Grant of Rights") provides the right to "prepare Modified
> Works". Since the definition of "Modified Work" excludes subclassing, for
> example, the question comes up whether or not subclassing is allowed at all.
> 
> You indicated that some lawyers believe that subclassing creates a
> derivative work. Creating a derivative works needs a permission of the
> copyright owner. Thus, the current wording is unclear about whether or not
> creating derivative works (which are not "Modified Works") is permitted.