Re: [epl-discuss] Concrete suggestions for changes to the EPL

[Richard Fontana <fontana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 03/18/2015 04:38 PM, Mike Milinkovich wrote:

> Just out of curiousity, what is the unintended bad consequence of 
> applying the EPL to image files?
> 
> Perhaps a simpler and more conservative change would be to replace "code 
> and documentation" with "code _or_ documentation". I have heard people 
> assert that unless the documentation is accompanying some code that it 
> is not covered by the EPL.

I was assuming an image file might be seen as neither code nor
documentation, but some third category of copyrightable material. So
the unintended bad consequence would be that anything not obviously
code or documentation might be unclear as to its licensing status,
whereas previously EPL might apply to it (as suboptimal as EPL or
other open source licenses might be for such content).

Maybe I've misunderstood the proposal? It sounds now like you're
trying to clarify that "EPL doesn't just apply to code" (in which case
maybe say that EPL applies to software and other copyrighted
materials?), whereas I had assumed you meant "EPL only applies to code
and documentation but nothing else".

If documentation does *not* accompany code, and if that documentation
also has a license notice saying "This documentation is licensed under
the EPL", how could someone contend that it is not covered by the EPL?

Richard