|Re: [epl-discuss] Status of generated code regarding "Derivative Works"|
I understand the issue we’re trying to avoid here and agree that more clarity would be welcome, but I’m not sure putting it into the license is the right way. First of all, I would not expect the generator’s license to extend to the generated code. As was said before, it depends on what the input and on how much the generation is dependant on who provided the input (snippets, logic, selection, modification etc.). As an analogy, I don’t expect my office suite’s or drawing programme’s license to affect my writing or drawing. If there are templates involved, those licenses *might* come into play. But if you ever used a template that came with the office suite, did you bother reading through the EULA if it mentions how its licensed? (This isn’t a perfect analogy, but then again that’s how analogies work.) Unless explicitly stated otherwise and backed up by facts, I would assume that the generator’s license does not extend to its output, since the output code is simply the product of its intended *use*. Secondly, I fear that adding an explanation for a specific use case, might end up being counter-productive. Stating explicitly that *generated code* is exempt is stating an *exception*, which in turn implies that if it’s not stated otherwise, the license does extend to everything else. Doing so, I fear that by getting rid of one issue we’d open a Pandora’s box of all other similar questions, as the EPL is a license used for various tools, projects etc. in various settings. Then we’d either have to redraft the EPL-2.1 soon for adding new exceptions and reiterate that process regularly until we end up with a fairly long license. Still, this is a very good question and I think it would be of great benefit to have a straight answer available. I propose we amend the EPL FAQ instead – which already includes a question on that topic¹ – to clarify that issue in no vague terms. That way we can easily add new similar issues to the FAQ as they arise, instead of redrafting the license. … all that being said, if we can find a carefully-drafted generic solution in the wording of the license text itself, that doesn’t specifically mention code generators, but happens to also include them, I agree that would be a good solution. cheers, Matija — 1 http://www.eclipse.org/legal/eplfaq.php#CODEGEN -- gsm: tel:+386.41.849.552 www: http://matija.suklje.name xmpp: matija.suklje@xxxxxxxxxxx sip: sip:matija_suklje@xxxxxxx
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Back to the top