Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [epl-discuss] Next Round of Proposed Revisions to the EPL

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 12:48 AM, Luis Villa <luis@xxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 7:41 PM Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 9/12/2016 8:23 PM, Michael Dolan wrote:

No, the inclusion of "documentation source" was intentional. It is there largely to be consistent with EPL 1.0, which defines Contribution as:

"Contribution" means:
          a) in the case of the initial Contributor, the initial code and *documentation* distributed under this Agreement....

Yes, I had noticed the change to "documentation source" (draft) vs "documentation" (in v1.0) and wondered if the scope intention changed. I specifically wondered if you were limiting the scope to documentation comments included in the source code.

So your interpretation is not what we intended. Do you have any suggestions on a clearer way to include documentation in the definition? Is saying "documentation source" rather than "documentation" more confusing?

Not an answer to this question, but I'd note that with the file-based focus of the license scope, it is now much clearer/easier (if necessary) to simply say "these files are not part of the work".

Luis+Mike: Agree. Mike, I'm not suggesting a change, I was just reading too much into the fact that the reference changed and was trying to understand if there was an implication. File based adds a boundary. I'm not sure if adding the word "source" helps honestly. If that last clause read, "software source code, documentation and configuration files" that would look fine to me as well. 

Back to the top