[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [epl-discuss] Materials for EPL Call
|
On 2017-01-30 2:51 PM, Weinstock, Nicholas Matthew Neft wrote:
First I wanted to mention the defined term "Contributor," which essentially redefines the word to mean "distributor."
Some uses of the term make sense as "distributor," but many uses are confusing in the situation that a distributor has not made any changes or additions. I know it's difficult to come up with an alternative that doesn't result in a circular definition, but it seems like this is a good opportunity to make the wording more clear for laypeople.
I would like to reply on this topic right away. We did talk briefly on
the call about this.
These are just my personal thoughts, not any official or consensus
position.
First I would like to mention that I had originally started with the
opinion that fixing this somewhat odd definition should be an objective
for the EPLv2. But I have personally looked at the drafting changes that
would be required to do this, and I came away with the thought that it
would be more trouble than it is worth. I think to achieve the clarity
that you're describing you would have to split contributor and
distributor into two different definitions, and then revise the license
with great care to cover both cases. The end result would be something
that reads quite differently than the current EPL.
So I am not philosphically opposed to fixing this. But I know that I
(for one) am not smart enough to do it gracefully. If you or anyone else
have revisions to propose, I am sure that we would all like to see them.
--
Mike Milinkovich
mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx
+1.613.220.3223 (mobile)
