On 10/7/2016 2:14 PM, Till Jaeger
wrote:
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.
So I have read this thread carefully several times, and I have to
admit that you have me confused.
The structure of the EPL 1.0 is that anything which is a derivative
work must be under the terms of the EPL 1.0. (I.e. it is a copyleft
license.) However, (Till's opinion notwithstanding) 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. Our desire is
that the EPL 2.0 follow the same basic construct: Modified Works
must be made available under the EPL 2.0; works which are not
Modified Works can be made available under other terms. Given that,
I don't see how granting an express right to create derivative works
helps.
In addition to the above, our motivation for using a defined term
for Modified Works was to: (a) avoid the ambiguity of relying on the
term, and (b) to eliminate the requirement to stipulate a choice of
law. Adding "derivative works" back into the license runs counter to
those objectives.
If we can't resolve this in another email to two, I will suggest
arranging a short call to discuss. Sometimes a conversation can save
a lot of typing.
Thanks for taking the time to help!
|