Re conflict, I don't think it is impossible to solve, I just beat my head against that wall for some time and had no constructive solutions. I would be pleased to see someone else actually crack that nut.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Jim Wright <
jim.wright@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, Mar 31, 2015, 12:02 PM
Subject: Re: [epl-discuss] Draft Changes
To: <
epl-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Mike, your point is fair re: the choice of law provision potentially hurting adoption, esp. outside the U.S. (and you would see this more than the rest of us). People certainly don’t seem to be shying away from licenses without one either. *I* still prefer more certainty, for the obvious reasons, but I cede that FOSS licenses lacking a specified choice of law may not be presenting a whole lot of real world problems to date (unless you think, e.g., being subject to German law in a GPL enforcement action is a problem... ;).
I’m not entirely sure I agree with Luis’s point re: conflict if we were to permit some choice of law - one would clearly have to, but I think perhaps could, come up with a way to manage this (though it might allow a tad less than 100% freedom of choice). In any event though, if the presence of a choice of law provision in the first place is really substantially hindering adoption and/or activity in the forge, then it’s probably for the best to just let it go.
On the scope of the reciprocal license obligation, it seems we’re mostly if not entirely in strenuous agreement, and I’m not hearing others objecting, so let me think about some revisions to address this point.
Best,
Jim
______________________________
_________________
epl-discuss mailing list
epl-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epl-discuss