| Re: [epl-discuss] Definition of Derivative Works |
|
On 25/03/2015 9:22 AM, Alex Miller
wrote:
Currently, EPL derives its power from copyright. Without a definition of derived work, the definition of US copyright is presumed, which includes all legal precedents associated with it. With a definition, the EPL becomes more like a contract and legal challenges would fight about what it contains, with no precedents. Alex, Just to add a little more to this specific point, I would like to point out that the proposed definition of Derivative Work (largely based on the ALv2) is: "Derivative Works" shall mean any work, whether in Source or Object form, that is based on (or derived from) the Program and for which the editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications represent, as a whole, an original work of authorship. For the purposes of this Agreement, Derivative Works shall not include works that remain separable from, or merely link (or bind by name) to the interfaces of, or subclass the Program and Derivative Works thereof. and that the definition from the US Copyright Act is: "...a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work". I am guessing that the inclusion of the phrase "...editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications represent, as a whole, an original work of authorship..." was included on purpose by the drafters of the Apache License, as it is word-for-word identical to the US legal definition. I'm not a lawyer, but I am guessing that would make the interpretation of the included definition much easier in the event of any litigation, because the courts could apply an analysis based on the precedents. So I think that the definition as written does address the concern that you expressed. It is consistent with US law and its precedents, so there would be no need to "...fight about what it contains". Not that some lawyer might not try :) So ultimately, the impact of what we have drafted here is to base it upon words very similar to the US Copyright Act, but by adding clarity to what we don't include we make it easier for developers to understand what we mean. (e.g. "...Derivative Works shall not include works that remain separable from, or merely link (or bind by name) to the interfaces of, or subclass the Program and Derivative Works thereof") I guess the real question is whether linking, binding by name, and subclassing do not create derivative works as we think of that term within the Eclipse community. Ignoring (for the moment) how lawyers think of those terms, I would certainly argue that the developers within the Eclipse community would agree with those exclusions. |