Please forgive me if these have been addressed, but this is my first time looking at this in depth. And also, I am not a lawyer, so please forgive any legal ignorance I may display.
Comment MM5: The modified works definition is IMHO one of the most critical portions of the document to get right because it defines the extent of the Copyleft. I'm thinking that "contains any contents of the Program." may need clarification for languages that must include forward declarations of type (C Header files for instance). Should this have a clarifying clause such as:
"Modified Works shall not include works that contain only declarations of interfaces, types, classes, structures, or files of the Program in order to link (or bind by name) to the program."
Comment MM7: I think this may be an important clause. As a specific example, if a subroutine written in Verilog is licensed under the EPL and that subroutine is combined into a larger system that defines a chip die, and that is then used to fabricate actual chips, then the hardware form of the EPL module in the combined chip is no longer separable, so it might be argued that the physical chip is now under the EPL (if the chip is a sculpture... and all the headaches going down that legal argument). The EPL may be very ill defined if applied to physical hardware and I don't think it is the intent of the EPL to try to govern that. Specifically calling out that the EPL never applies to hardware is a good way to avoid the whole mess in my opinion.
Section 3.1b: The removal of the original section iii would seem to disallow the distributor to include any warrantees or indemnifications in a compiled work. Sections i and ii both force the distributor to give up all liabilities, including their own, and there doesn't seem to be a way for the distributor to then take liability unto themselves alone. I think that this may conflict directly with section 4 as a result.