Hello from the Clojure community! We use EPL pretty
widely and Mike was nice enough to drop us a line on the mailing
list about the proposed changes. I talked to Rich Hickey about it
briefly and wanted to pass on some feedback. I'll preface it by
saying that we're happy with EPL 1.0 as is.
Re "Definition of Derivative Works", there is no clear
statement about what problem needs to be addressed. The previous
thread said that "Relying on the term "derivative works" as
defined in US law has been an issue in a number of scenarios,
particularly in Europe." That hints at the problems but
does not state what they actually were.
A potential solution is "Changing this to a defined term
would help be explicit about what we mean. We would recommend
using the definition from the ALv2 license, perhaps with an
explicit inclusion of sub-classing." but no other
potential solution was offered for consideration.
Currently, EPL derives its power from copyright. Without a
definition of derived work, the definition of US copyright is
presumed, which includes all legal precedents associated with
it. With a definition, the EPL becomes more like a contract and
legal challenges would fight about what it contains, with no
precedents. Perhaps the use of US copyright law is related to
the problems in Europe?
ALv2 is perhaps not the best place to look for precedent in
this because it is not a reciprocal license and thus cares about
derivative works primarily for notice conveyance, which is a
different problem with different concerns. ALv2 just defines
derives works as "based on (or derived from)" which
doesn't really clarify anything. The exclusion in the ALv2
license might be useful though: "For the purposes of this
License, Derivative Works shall not include works that remain
separable from, or merely link (or bind by name) to the
interfaces of, the Work and Derivative Works thereof."