On 27/03/2015 3:10 PM, Terry J Carroll
wrote:
On the no-jury-trial
provision: Although having a jury feels good, the reality is
that jury resolutions are more expensive and much less
predictable than a trial before a judge. I would expect that
the substantive issues in the license are not likely to be
fact-based questions for a jury, anyway, but would be questions
of law for the judge. The one issue that would go to a jury
would be the issue of monetary damages, and that is an area in
particular where you want more predictability. Especially in
damage assessment, juries can be something of a gamble.
Finally, the one-year period also
provides for stability. There has to be some period after which
someone with a complaint either has to make it or let the world
go on. If we intend for companies, especially smaller ones, to
be able to make business assumptions that include Eclipse and
its license, the period in which someone can bring an issue
can't be lengthy or open-ended.
Terry,
I understand those points above. Can you point to a single other
open source license (not including the IPL or the CPL) which
contains similar terms?
FWIW, I don't feel as strongly about these points as I do the
choice-of-law. I think that they are artifacts of the EPL's original
authorship, and are not commonly seen in FLOSS licenses. But we
haven't experienced as much pushback on them as the other topics
under discussion.
|