|Re: [epl-discuss] EPLv2 Current Draft|
Matija,We had a chance to discuss most of these on the call. Notes and resolutions noted below.
On 2017-06-05 12:02 PM, Matija Šuklje wrote:
• Does “Modified Works shall not include” cover all such cases in all types of programming languages? It sure seems like a quite exhaustive list and my coding skills are very limited, but maybe that’s something to check. Specifically since there are three ways that we list now (“link, bind by name, or subclass”) which might be read as excluding similar other methods (should these exist) used by other languages. I’d be very happy to be told this is a non-issue by people more knowledgeable then me.
We cannot think of anything to add at this point, but we will happily consider suggestions.
• (playing devils’ advocate): Let’s say a project has no CLA/CAA in place and starts of under the MIT license. Then it forks and the fork decides to change the license to EPL-2.0. Would the fact that some of the (initial) content fall outside the definition of “Program” and “Contribution” as they weren’t released under the “Agreement”/EPL-2.0 cause issues? The other way to look at it is that there’s simply MIT code and EPL-2.0 code in there and they both can happily coexist. The gist of the issue here might be how do we go about the “initial Contribution” or lack thereof. Of note is that the “initial Contributor”, the way I read it, does not necessarily need to contribute his initial contribution under the “Agreement”/EPL-2.0.
We need to think about this one....
• (just something I noticed, probably fine and intentional): deletion of content counts as “Modified Works”, but not as a “Contribution”. Relevant here is that “Modified Works” are used only in the context of defining “Contribution” and have nothing to do with “Derivative Works” or “Contributor”.
This was by intent....we cannot think of a way for a Contributor to license their deletions. In addition "change" will capture many (most?) "deletions" in the common use of the word. We will include this as an FAQ entry, as it is a perfectly reasonable question.
• §2.e is the only place where the license is referred to as “as set forth in EPL v. 2”, where elsewhere it is referred to as “Agreement”
Good catch. Thank you.
• Does the “For example […]” paragraph fit under the §4 or would that be better outside of the “Agreement” itself as an appendix or FAQ explaining the “Agreement”/EPL-2.0?
Good point, but that entire §4 text was left as it was in EPL v1.0. So for reasons of backwards compatibility, I think we should leave as is.
-- Mike Milinkovich mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (m) +1.613.220.3223 Please note the change to my email address.
Back to the top