[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
Re: [epl-discuss] EPLv2 Current Draft
|
Matija,
We had a chance to discuss most of these on the call. Notes and
resolutions noted below.
On 2017-06-05 12:02 PM, Matija Šuklje wrote:
• 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.
We cannot think of anything to add at this point, but we will happily
consider suggestions.
• (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.
We need to think about this one....
• (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”.
This was by intent....we cannot think of a way for a Contributor to
license their deletions. In addition "change" will capture many (most?)
"deletions" in the common use of the word. We will include this as an
FAQ entry, as it is a perfectly reasonable question.
• §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”
Good catch. Thank you.
• 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?
Good point, but that entire §4 text was left as it was in EPL v1.0. So
for reasons of backwards compatibility, I think we should leave as is.
--
Mike Milinkovich
mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(m) +1.613.220.3223
Please note the change to my email address.