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


Thanks for taking the time to look at this. Your feedback is appreciated. Responses are in-lined below.

On 2016-09-13 01:53 PM, Till Jaeger wrote:
Whereas the changes in sec. 1 are fine, the new wording in sec. 2 could have
some unwanted side effects. The grant of rights should be as broad as
possible (as with all FOSS licenses). Using the term "Modified Work" instead
of "derivative work" could be interpreted in a way that alterations are not
allowed which are no "modifications" but create a "derivative work". Since
it is unclear in many (all?) jurisdictions what is considered a "derivative
work" we cannot assume that the current definition of "Modified Work" does
cover all alterations needing permission from the copyright holder.
Therefore, I suggest the following text: "prepare derivative works,
including but not limited to Modified Works,"

I am pretty sure that we do not want to do this. The main reason is that some lawyers believe that subclassing creates a derivative work, and we want to explicitly exclude subclassing from the definition. Your proposed construction could make that ambiguous.

You might consider to clarify the meaning of sec. 3:
"a) it complies with the terms and conditions of this Agreement;"

I never understood what means "comply" in this provision. Does the own
license agreement contain all license conditions of the EPL?

Which license obligations have to be fulfiled in the case that the
Executable Code is distributed under the EPL (instead of an own license
agreement)? It would be great to facilitate license compliance by providing
a clear and simple list of all license obligations.

We believe that the "it" in that instance is actually the Contributor, not their agreement. To be clearer about that, perhaps we should change 3a) and b) to read:
a) the Contributor complies with the terms and conditions of this Agreement; and
b) the Contributor’s license agreement: ....
It might be useful to check the EPL for full license compatibility with the
Apache-2.0. I have concerns about compatibility if someone wants to copy
code from an Apache-2.0 program into EPL code (e.g. with regard to the
"NOTICE" provision of Apache-2.0).

I am not sure why you want to single out the ALv2 for this type of analysis? To be clear, we've never claimed that you can cut-and-paste ALv2 source into EPL-licensed code.

Best regards,
Mike Milinkovich

Back to the top