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 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 

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 

gsm:	tel:+386.41.849.552
xmpp:	matija.suklje@xxxxxxxxxxx
sip:	sip:matija_suklje@xxxxxxx

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Back to the top