| Re: [science-iwg] Fwd: Re: [triquetrum] Dual License Triquetrum under EPLv1.0 and EPL-1.0-BSD (#46) |
Well, in fairness, I hear complaints from nonmembers about the patent clause in the EPL all the time. Our attorney at ORNL wrestled with it for awhile before he was comfortable with it too. In the end he decided it was fine.
UCB had previously objected to a request from someone on my team on ground of the EPL patent clause, so I think they just really don't like it.
Jay
On 2/16/2016 2:35 PM, Erwin de Ley wrote:
From the analysis by Christopher below, it would seem that a rather small addition/modification in the standard EPL could enable academic/research institutions to actively participate in Eclipse open-source projects. Whereas the current EPL patent clause seems to prohibit that.
Changing open source license terms is an extremely time-consuming and difficult thing to do. However, for those who are interested in such things there are on-going (but currently dormant) discussions about revising the EPL at epl-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxx
Personally I don't understand such legal details, but the issue encountered for UC Berkeley is probably widely applicable to many more US institutions (and European ones as well I guess). And it would seem that the Science IWG is specifically impacted by this as we're targeting research/academic instutions a.o.
UC Berkley is the first institution in 12 years to raise these concerns. I would not rush to any assumptions about their conclusions.
This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast.
www.avast.com
_______________________________________________
science-iwg mailing list
science-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/science-iwg
