Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [epl-discuss] Draft changes

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.


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.

Mike Milinkovich
+1.613.220.3223 (mobile)

Back to the top