Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [epl-discuss] Status of generated code regarding "Derivative Works"


I'm doubtful of the claim that a question about the license/copyright/intellectual-property status of EMF generated code went unanswered in the EMF forum or on the EMF mailing list.   I've answered that question several times on the forum for the years.  My answer might not be an answer that is satisfactory to a lawyer, given that I'm not a lawyer, but it's definitely a question that has been answered.   The general premise (in my non-legal opinion) has always been that the output of the generator has the same properties as the user's input to the generator.

Your request/suggestion that this might be clarified in the EPL doesn't seem unreasonable.


On 21.04.2017 14:59, Vincent Hemery wrote:

As for the previous EPL version, there was a vague regarding the status of generated code, whether they are derivative work of the generator itself or not.
Basically (if my understanding is correct), it is up to the code generator implementers to tell whether the generated code is subject to the same terms as the generator itself, or whether it can be considered as a complete separate work.

This leads to ambiguous situations, where even a license expert (and I am not talking about myself) has difficulities in telling whether the generated code can be considered as original code or not. A colleague of mine tried to dig this case for EMF generated code (which I think we all consider as brand new constraint-free code) and never got any satisfying answer, even after trying to mail the EMF project (with no response).

With a brand new definition or "Derivative Works", this would be great to clarify this situation (especially with the rise of Xtend generators).
I guess it would be in the license's spirit to declare generate code as original non-"Derivative Works", unless explicitely specified by the generator implementers.
And if so, how could the generator implementers specify that the generated code is subject to particular copyright and licenses ? Possibly by inserting the copyright and license directly in the generated code ? Could we then forbid that code modifiers delete the generation of such notices ?

This case may raise lots of additional questions. But I think it would be great if it were crystal-clear in the EPL v2.

Best regards,

Ingénieur d'études et développement
Business Unit E-SPACE & Geo Information - Département Ground Systems Services

CS Systèmes d'Information
Parc de la Grande Plaine - 5, Rue Brindejonc des Moulinais - BP 15872
31506 Toulouse Cedex 05 - FRANCE
+33 561 17 63 10 - vincent.hemery@xxxxxx

epl-discuss mailing list
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit

Back to the top