Re: [epl-discuss] EPLv2 Current Draft

[Matija Šuklje <matija@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

I will not be able to attend today due to a clash with another meeting 
and due to travel on Wednesday I may not make the other call this week 
either (I’ll try though).

Please find some thoughts from my side below.

I like the simplifications made in the latest revision and kudos to 
everyone involved, especially Mike for all the hard work.

• Does “Modified Works shall not include” cover all such cases in all 
types of programming languages? It sure seems like a quite exhaustive 
list and my coding skills are very limited, but maybe that’s something 
to check. Specifically since there are three ways that we list now 
(“link, bind by name, or subclass”) which might be read as excluding 
similar other methods (should these exist) used by other languages. I’d 
be very happy to be told this is a non-issue by people more 
knowledgeable then me.

• (playing devils’ advocate): Let’s say a project has no CLA/CAA in 
place and starts of under the MIT license. Then it forks and the fork 
decides to change the license to EPL-2.0. Would the fact that some of 
the (initial) content fall outside the definition of “Program” and 
“Contribution” as they weren’t released under the “Agreement”/EPL-2.0 
cause issues? The other way to look at it is that there’s simply MIT 
code and EPL-2.0 code in there and they both can happily coexist. The 
gist of the issue here might be how do we go about the “initial 
Contribution” or lack thereof. Of note is that the “initial 
Contributor”, the way I read it, does not necessarily need to contribute 
his initial contribution under the “Agreement”/EPL-2.0.

• (just something I noticed, probably fine and intentional): deletion of 
content counts as “Modified Works”, but not as a “Contribution”. 
Relevant here is that “Modified Works” are used only in the context of 
defining “Contribution” and have nothing to do with “Derivative Works” 
or “Contributor”.

• §2.e is the only place where the license is referred to as “as set 
forth in EPL v. 2”, where elsewhere it is referred to as “Agreement”

• Does the “For example […]” paragraph fit under the §4 or would that be 
better outside of the “Agreement” itself as an appendix or FAQ 
explaining the “Agreement”/EPL-2.0?


cheers,
Matija
--
gsm:	+386 41 849 552
www:	http://matija.suklje.name
xmpp:	matija.suklje@xxxxxxxxxxx
sip:	matija_suklje@xxxxxxx