[science-iwg] Fwd: Re: [triquetrum] Dual License Triquetrum under EPLv1.

[Erwin de Ley <erwin.de.ley@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear all,

From the analysis by Christopher below, it would seem that a rather small addition/modification in the standard EPL could enable academic/research institutions to actively participate in Eclipse open-source projects. Whereas the current EPL patent clause seems to prohibit that.

Personally I don't understand such legal details, but the issue encountered for UC Berkeley is probably widely applicable to many more US institutions (and European ones as well I guess). And it would seem that the Science IWG is specifically impacted by this as we're targeting research/academic instutions a.o.

Is there a way forward to allow projects of the Science IWG to adapt such a modified license with approval from the Eclipse Foundation?

thanks
erwin

-------- Doorgestuurd bericht --------

Onderwerp:	Re: [triquetrum] Dual License Triquetrum under EPLv1.0 and EPL-1.0-BSD (#46)
Datum:	Tue, 16 Feb 2016 11:18:35 -0800
Van:	Christopher Brooks <notifications@xxxxxxxxxx>
Antwoord-naar:	eclipse/triquetrum <reply+006299e1c55f9f83aa8471ca952054ef82c6d8d3f7ee5f3592cf0000000112db380b92a169ce07cbc721@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Aan:	eclipse/triquetrum <triquetrum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

It seems that dual licensing will not solve UC's problem with the EPL.

Some projects at Berkeley were able to use the Educational Community License, Version 2.0 (ECL-2.0), which says:

"The Educational Community License version 2.0 ("ECL") consists of the Apache 2.0 license, modified to change the scope of the patent grant in section 3 to be specific to the needs of the education communities using this license. The original Apache 2.0 license can be found at: http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0"

Section 3 is:

"3. Grant of Patent License.
"Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work, where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s) with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted. If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed. Any patent license granted hereby with respect to contributions by an individu al employed by an institution or organization is limited to patent claims where the individual that is the author of the Work is also the inventor of the patent claims licensed, and where the organization or institution has the right to grant such license under applicable grant and research funding agreements. No other express or implied licenses are granted."

If the Eclipse Foundation and UC were able to agree on a similar license that was based on the EPL, then perhaps Triquetrum could have a single license, and organizations like UC Berkeley could join the Eclipse Foundation. I realize that having Eclipse adopt a different license for some packages is not very practical and not very likely. In addition, the patent clause in the EPL provides a modicum of protection for the users of the EPL-licensed software. Modifying the EPL to be like the ECL reduces that protection, which is also probably not palatable.

The downside is that UC won't agree to the the EPL as is, which means that UC cannot join the Eclipse Foundation. This means that we are losing an opportunity to train students in how to directly collaborate as a part of their organization with the open source community. Yes, UC students, staff and faculty may sign Individual Committer Agreements as a workaround, but we are missing out on an opportunity.

I don't think there is much else to be done here, so I'll close this issue in a few days if there is no further discussion.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.