Re: [epl-discuss] Concrete suggestions for changes to the EPL

[Richard Fontana <fontana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 03/18/2015 04:02 PM, Mike Milinkovich wrote:

>   * /Scope of Copyright License: /The applicability of the EPL is
>     restricted to code and documentation, rather than all copyrightable
>     materials.

This might have unintended bad consequences - suppose a source
repository today just gives EPL as the license and includes some image
files? (What is the rationale for making the restriction?)

I think this sort of provision would be unprecedented for an open
source license, regardless of whether it's a good thing.

>   * /"Module": /The use of the term module has been a problem for some.
>     Many seem to prefer the more concrete term "file".

I agree with this - I've tended to interpret EPL "module" in this way
anyway.

>   * /Choice of Law: /Eclipse has very successful around the world, and
>     particularly in Europe. We have quite a few European research
>     projects which are involved with Eclipse technology. There are many
>     actors in the Eclipse ecosystem who would prefer to see the EPL
>     neutral with regards to a choice of law provision (e.g.
>     "intellectual property laws of the United States of America"). Even
>     in the USA, the choice of New York state law is largely seen as a
>     vestige of IBM's original authorship of the EPL's predecessor
>     license the Common Public License.

I think is a good idea (based in part on some experiences I had not so
long ago involving the Clojure community).

RF