Re: [epl-discuss] Next Round of Proposed Revisions to the EPL

[Luis Villa <luis@xxxxx>]

I think the missing word(s?) are somewhat significant - if I'm not clear on the relationship of the Modified Work to the Program, it is somewhat hard to evaluate that change.

Assuming you go with "resulting", I think the changes look reasonable.

In attempting to trace something about Modified Works, Contributions, and the Program, I noticed this (held over from 1.0):

Sec. 1: The Program [is] the Contributions distributed in accordance with this Agreement.

Sec. 4: When the Program is made available ... it must be made available under this Agreement.

This seems a little tautological to me; the Program is defined as the things under this agreement, so it isn't crystal clear that you can't just say "nope, my contributions aren't under the Agreement" and move along.

I'd suggest making this slightly more clear by saying in Sec. 4:

"When the Program, or Modified Works thereof, is made available in Source Code form:

(a) they must be made available under this Agreement; and

(b) a copy of this Agreement must be included with each copy with the Source Code form."

If "thereof" seems awkward, could use the longer phrase we used in MPL when dealing with this issue - "any Modifications that You create or to which You contribute".

Hope that helps-

Luis

Luis

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 1:19 PM Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Luis,

Thanks for the feedback. Most of those are likely minor edits that we can tweak once we're ready for the next round.

Any feedback on the substance of the changes? Do you think these definitions are an improvement?

Thanks again.

On 9/9/2016 4:14 PM, Luis Villa wrote:

Hi, Mike - thanks for sharing, and congrats on the progress.

One quick comment- the definition of Modified Form reads to me like it is missing a word?

"shall mean any work, in Source or Executable Code from an addition to, deletion from, or modification of the contents of the Program,"

any work _taken_ from? _resulting_ from? (MPL uses resulting from; not great but it seemed best after we'd discarded all other options.)

Less substantively important, but judging from uses in other contexts, the draft tends to say "Executable Code form", not just naked "Executable Code", so maybe also a missing "form"?

On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 10:35 AM Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

All,

This has taken far too long, but this morning I posted the next round of proposed revisions to the EPL.

You can find the new version on GitHub here, HTML preview here, with the changes shown here.

For those who prefer, please find attached a PDF with the redlines.

The main revisions were as follows:

• changed the defined term from "Derivative Work" to "Modified Work" to make it clearer that it is a defined term.
• added definitions for Source Code and Executable Code.
• changed the definition of Modified Work to (hopefully) be more precise.
  

I look forward to your feedback. In particular, defining derivative works is a big change. We definitely want to make sure we get that right.

Thanks in advance.

--
Mike Milinkovich
mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx
+1.613.220.3223 (mobile)
@mmilinkov

_______________________________________________
epl-discuss mailing list
epl-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epl-discuss

--
Mike Milinkovich
mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx
+1.613.220.3223 (mobile)
@mmilinkov

_______________________________________________
epl-discuss mailing list
epl-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epl-discuss