|
Vincent,
I'm doubtful of the claim that a question about the
license/copyright/intellectual-property status of EMF generated
code went unanswered in the EMF forum or on the EMF mailing
list. I've answered that question several times on the forum for
the years. My answer might not be an answer that is satisfactory
to a lawyer, given that I'm not a lawyer, but it's definitely a
question that has been answered. The general premise (in my
non-legal opinion) has always been that the output of the
generator has the same properties as the user's input to the
generator.
Your request/suggestion that this might be clarified in the EPL
doesn't seem unreasonable.
Regards,
Ed
On 21.04.2017 14:59, Vincent Hemery
wrote:
Hello,
As for the previous EPL version, there was a vague regarding the
status of generated code, whether they are derivative work of the
generator itself or not.
Basically (if my understanding is correct), it is up to the code
generator implementers to tell whether the generated code is
subject to the same terms as the generator itself, or whether it
can be considered as a complete separate work.
This leads to ambiguous situations, where even a license expert
(and I am not talking about myself) has difficulities in telling
whether the generated code can be considered as original code or
not. A colleague of mine tried to dig this case for EMF generated
code (which I think we all consider as brand new constraint-free
code) and never got any satisfying answer, even after trying to
mail the EMF project (with no response).
With a brand new definition or "Derivative Works", this would be
great to clarify this situation (especially with the rise of Xtend
generators).
I guess it would be in the license's spirit to declare generate
code as original non-"Derivative Works", unless explicitely
specified by the generator implementers.
And if so, how could the generator implementers specify that the
generated code is subject to particular copyright and licenses ?
Possibly by inserting the copyright and license directly in the
generated code ? Could we then forbid that code modifiers delete
the generation of such notices ?
This case may raise lots of additional questions. But I think it
would be great if it were crystal-clear in the EPL v2.
_______________________________________________
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
|
