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

[Michael Dolan <mdolan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 12:48 AM, Luis Villa <luis@xxxxx> wrote:

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 7:41 PM Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 9/12/2016 8:23 PM, Michael Dolan wrote:

No, the inclusion of "documentation source" was intentional. It is there largely to be consistent with EPL 1.0, which defines Contribution as:

"Contribution" means:
          a) in the case of the initial Contributor, the initial code and *documentation* distributed under this Agreement....

Yes, I had noticed the change to "documentation source" (draft) vs "documentation" (in v1.0) and wondered if the scope intention changed. I specifically wondered if you were limiting the scope to documentation comments included in the source code.

So your interpretation is not what we intended. Do you have any suggestions on a clearer way to include documentation in the definition? Is saying "documentation source" rather than "documentation" more confusing?

Not an answer to this question, but I'd note that with the file-based focus of the license scope, it is now much clearer/easier (if necessary) to simply say "these files are not part of the work".

Luis+Mike: Agree. Mike, I'm not suggesting a change, I was just reading too much into the fact that the reference changed and was trying to understand if there was an implication. File based adds a boundary. I'm not sure if adding the word "source" helps honestly. If that last clause read, "software source code, documentation and configuration files" that would look fine to me as well.