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

[Till Jaeger <till.jaeger@xxxxxxxxx>]

Am 03.10.2016 um 17:42 schrieb Jim Wright:
> 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…?  

This is exactely what I want to say.

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?

Correct.

Best,
Till

> 
> 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.
>