|Re: [epl-discuss] Draft changes|
Our philosophy was that the license should enable low-friction sharing/intermingling of code between parties who have no legal relationship to each other. So relying on assignment or other agreement on top of the license was not satisfactory.
That said, maybe something like "copyright holder's venue, and defendant's venue if both parties are copyright holders" would work in the general case?
On 30/03/2015 1:53 PM, Luis Villa wrote:
> FWIW part of the motivation for the Mozilla scheme was that, when
> looking at an "author chooses law" option, we could not think of a way
> to allow the author to choose that would allow compatibility between,
> say, Mozilla-NY, Mozilla-CA(li), Mozilla-CA(nuck), and Mozilla-UK.
> They each essentially become a separate license for purpose of
> compatibility analysis, which would defeat part of the point of a
> copyleft, even a weak one. So I'd recommend against that approach even
> though it sounds intuitively appealing.
Just out of curiousity, did you consider "copyright holder chooses law",
or "the law is the venue of the copyright holder"? That way, in the case
of Mozilla you could have used inter-company agreements to have all of
the copyrights held by one entity (I assume Mozilla-CA(li)), and get you
the venue you want.
Back to the top