Re: [epl-discuss] Inquiry about EPL 1.0

[Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2021-09-29 6:24 p.m., ???? wrote:

Dear Mike,

Thanks for ur?0?2 kindly reply!

For the second question in simply words, we develop two programs, the base program is a derivated work with EPL license without doubt.

I always recommend that the EPL-2.0 be used in preference to the EPL-1.0. I would recommend using the 2.0 version for this.

The second program calls thew first program by API, but this program is not developed as a plugin for the first program.?0?2 We want to clarify whether the second program is a derivatived work of the first program? or not?

As per this FAQ entry, if the second program only ever calls the EPL-licensed program via its APIs, then we do not consider the second program a derivative work. Therefore you can use the license of your choice for your second program. Some feel that this distrinction is clearer in the EPL-2.0 than in EPL-1.0, which is one of the reasons we recommend EPL-2.0.

HTH!

Best Regards,

William

---Original---

From: "Mike Milinkovich"<mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Date: Wed, Sep 29, 2021 20:36 PM

To: "epl-discuss"<epl-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxx>;

Subject: Re: [epl-discuss] Inquiry about EPL 1.0

On 2021-09-28 9:36 p.m., William Guo wrote:

Dear Experts,

I am one of the developers of EPL 1.0 software project. This letter is in regard to my inquiry about the usage rule of EPL 1.0.

1. I learned in the 12th clause of FAQ of EPL 1.0 saying that "except for those who simply redistribute the Program, each Contributor in a way that later Recipients will be able to readily see" Thus, may I write "copyright (c) 2021 XXX project contributors" for a project which will firstly open source a few weeks later under EPL 1.0 as its contributors really want to remain anonymous?

Honestly, I don't know the answer to this question. If no one else on this list can answer it, then I would suggest trying license-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.

Historically, the Eclipse Foundation does not allow anonymous contributions, but I believe that is because we want to ensure complete transparency on the provenance of all our project's code.

2. I learned in the 27th clause of FAQ of EPL 1.0?0?2saying that "if you've written your own Eclipse Platform Plug-in with 100% your own code to implement functionality not currently in Eclipse, then it is not a derivative work" and "For clarity, merely interfacing or interoperating with Eclipse Platform Plug-in APIs (without modification) does not make an Eclipse Platform Plug-in a derivative work. " I wrote myself a J2V8 derivative work and "A Software". "A Software" (licensed under Apache 2.0) can call the J2V8 derivative work by APIs, but the former is not the plug-in of the latter. In this case, can "A software" still prevent from being contaminated by EPL 1.0?

I am sorry, but I am not sure I completely understand the scenario you're describing. Could you try to restate the scenario? In what way is your software a J2V8 derivative work?

2. What's more, as EPL 1.0 has been superseded by the EPL 2.0, may I license this J2V8 derivative work under EPL 2.0 as J2V8 is licensed under EPL 1.0? Or, I should only license it under EPL 1.0?

You can use the EPL 2.0.

I really appreciate your time and patience! Looking forward for your reply!

I hope this was helpful!

--

Mike Milinkovich

Executive Director | Eclipse Foundation AISBL

mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

@mmilinkov

+1.613.220.3223 (m)