[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
Re: [epl-discuss] Concrete suggestions for changes to the EPL
|
On 03/18/2015 04:02 PM, Mike Milinkovich wrote:
> * /Scope of Copyright License: /The applicability of the EPL is
> restricted to code and documentation, rather than all copyrightable
> materials.
This might have unintended bad consequences - suppose a source
repository today just gives EPL as the license and includes some image
files? (What is the rationale for making the restriction?)
I think this sort of provision would be unprecedented for an open
source license, regardless of whether it's a good thing.
> * /"Module": /The use of the term module has been a problem for some.
> Many seem to prefer the more concrete term "file".
I agree with this - I've tended to interpret EPL "module" in this way
anyway.
> * /Choice of Law: /Eclipse has very successful around the world, and
> particularly in Europe. We have quite a few European research
> projects which are involved with Eclipse technology. There are many
> actors in the Eclipse ecosystem who would prefer to see the EPL
> neutral with regards to a choice of law provision (e.g.
> "intellectual property laws of the United States of America"). Even
> in the USA, the choice of New York state law is largely seen as a
> vestige of IBM's original authorship of the EPL's predecessor
> license the Common Public License.
I think is a good idea (based in part on some experiences I had not so
long ago involving the Clojure community).
RF