From: epl-discuss-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:epl-discuss-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Thompson
Sent: June-13-13 8:57 AM
To: Discussions about the EPL(Eclipse Public License)
Subject: Re: [epl-discuss] [Topic] Copyleft provisions are not obvious
Jim,
The "legal angst" over using the derivative work concept stems from the nature of the concept. Its very fact specific and therefore its hard to provide a bright-line rule that everyone can follow. The problem with disposing of it, though, is that you will necessarily either (a) reduce copyleft protections by authorizing derivative works for which no source code needs to be provided or (b) reduce the freedom of the users to make uses of the work that wouldn't normally require a copyright license because they aren't derivative works.
I'd suggest that the best result is achieved by an approach that clearly doesn't restrict any use that doesn't require a copyright license but covers all uses that do. To do that, you're going to need to retain the concept of a derivative work (or its local legal equivalent). Individual users can accommodate the uncertainty inherent in the definition by treating close cases as derivative works at least for as long as it takes the courts to settle the outstanding definitional issues. As the law gets more settled, users will have more guidance.
Jeff
Counsel, IBM Corporation (914)766-1757 (tie)8-826 (fax) -7164
epl-discuss-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 06/12/2013 09:47:41 PM:
> From:
>
> Jim Wright <jim.wright@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> To:
>
> epl-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxx,
>
> Date:
>
> 06/12/2013 09:53 PM
>
> Subject:
>
> Re: [epl-discuss] [Topic] Copyleft provisions are not obvious
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> epl-discuss mailing list
> epl-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epl-discuss
>
