All,
This email thread has been quiet for quite some time. But Janet and
I would like to restart the discussions.
Changing a widely-used license such as the EPL is a big task, and we
would like to focus on a narrow set of pragmatic changes. The
initial list that we would propose includes:
- Definition of Derivative Works: Relying on
the term "derivative works" as defined in US law has been an
issue in a number of scenarios, particularly in Europe. Changing
this to a defined term would help be explicit about what we
mean. We would recommend using the definition from the ALv2
license, perhaps with an explicit inclusion of sub-classing. The
ALv2's approach to defining "Derivative Work" has demonstrably
been well accepted by industry and the open source community.
- Scope of Copyright License: The
applicability of the EPL is restricted to code and
documentation, rather than all copyrightable materials.
- "Module": The use of the term module has
been a problem for some. Many seem to prefer the more concrete
term "file".
- Choice of Law: Eclipse has very successful
around the world, and particularly in Europe. We have quite a
few European research projects which are involved with Eclipse
technology. There are many actors in the Eclipse ecosystem who
would prefer to see the EPL neutral with regards to a choice of
law provision (e.g. "intellectual property laws of the United
States of America"). Even in the USA, the choice of New York
state law is largely seen as a vestige of IBM's original
authorship of the EPL's predecessor license the Common Public
License.
- No Jury Trial: We have had this particular
topic come up recently in the context of DoD and US Federal
Government procurement policies. We are not aware of any other
open source licenses which contain this provision.
Any thoughts or comments?
|
