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

[Till Jaeger <till.jaeger@xxxxxxxxx>]

Am 13.10.2016 um 17:54 schrieb Mike Milinkovich:
> On 10/7/2016 2:14 PM, Till Jaeger wrote:
>> Am 03.10.2016 um 17:42 schrieb Jim Wright:
>>> > Till, on your question on Section 2, perhaps the answer is simply to add
>>> > the express right to prepare derivative works, provided that any portions
>>> > of such derivative work which are comprised of the Program in whole or in
>>> > part remain subject to the terms and conditions of the license?  Let’s
>>> > say a court decides that subclassing does create a derivative work.  The
>>> > license then provides that what they did is permitted and does not apply
>>> > the requirements of Section 3 to the subclass…?  
>> This is exactely what I want to say.
> 
> So I have read this thread carefully several times, and I have to admit that
> you have me confused.
> 
> The structure of the EPL 1.0 is that anything which is a derivative work
> must be under the terms of the EPL 1.0. (I.e. it is a copyleft license.)
> However, (Till's opinion notwithstanding) the EPL 1.0 was always intended to
> be a weak copyleft license. It was drafted such that anything which is *not*
> a derivative work could be offered under whatever terms the copyright holder
> desired. Our desire is that the EPL 2.0 follow the same basic construct:
> Modified Works must be made available under the EPL 2.0; works which are not
> Modified Works can be made available under other terms. Given that, I don't
> see how granting an express right to create derivative works helps.

The reason comes from the basic principles of copyright. Default is that it
is not allowed to copy, distribute and modify a copyrighted work. Thus, an
explicit license is needed to allow people such use. Furthermore, the scope
of the grant of rights is interpreted narrowly in many jurisdictions. A
restricted grant of rights (i.e. to create Modified Works as defined in the
draft) means that the EPL will be interpreted in a way that any other
adaptation of the software going beyond of what is a Modified Work and shall
_not_ be allowed.

Therefore, a broad grant of rights is needed even though you want a weak
copyleft.

> In addition to the above, our motivation for using a defined term for
> Modified Works was to: (a) avoid the ambiguity of relying on the term, and
> (b) to eliminate the requirement to stipulate a choice of law. Adding
> "derivative works" back into the license runs counter to those objectives.

I don't think so. However, you may use a different wording as "any kind of
adaptation" to make clear that the user is allowed to modify the software in
any possible way.

Nevertheless, you may use your defintion of "Modified Work" to make clear
what triggers the coyleft.

> 
> If we can't resolve this in another email to two, I will suggest arranging a
> short call to discuss. Sometimes a conversation can save a lot of typing.

Sure. I would be happy to discuss the matter over the phone.

> Thanks for taking the time to help!

Pleasure.

Best,

Till

> 
> -- 
> 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
>