|Re: [epl-discuss] Questions Regarding Derivative Work Definitions, Etc.|
On 2017-06-06 12:47 PM, Lipton, Paul C wrote:
CA Technologies Legal has examined the various material. We would like to pose a short comment and question with possible suggestion (apologies for posting this somewhat late in the process): We are still somewhat uncertain regarding the need for separate definitions for "derivative work" and "modified work" and welcome clarifications/explanations. Also, we note a few potential issues here in the actual markup, for example. they indicate they are trying to mirror the Title 17 definition of derivative work but the actual definition they use, ""Derivative Works" shall mean any work, whether in Source Code or Executable Code form, that is based on (or derived from) the Program and for which the editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications represent, as a whole, an original work of authorship." differs (confusingly) from that definition. We would suggest that the Title 17 definition is used verbatim with an exception for sub-classing, if that is the intent (Can we assume this is so that example classes provided in Eclipse materials may be modified/used by those using Eclipse tools? Is this correct?)?
Paul,Thank you for the input. We appreciate you and your team taking the time to review the drafts.
We have talked back and forth on this topic many times as we have gone through this process, and are satisfied that the current construction is the correct one. The purpose of the Modified Works definition is to carefully delineate the scope of the copyleft. The purpose of the Derivative Works definition is to allow us to remove the refernence to New York law.
We would be happy to have a phone call with your advisors if you think it helpful.
-- Mike Milinkovich mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (m) +1.613.220.3223 Please note the change to my email address.
Back to the top