It came to my attention earlier this week that the Eclipse Foundation
had begun public discussion of the drafting of a new version of the EPL.
So far little has been said on the relevant mailing list:
This caught my attention though:
http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/epl-discuss/msg00013.html as it
relates closely to the 'rule vs standard' issue that in the past was
The suggestion made by Jim Wright is interesting as at a high level it
bears some relationship to what I have been thinking about lately for
copyleft-next. It starts out with MPL-style copyleft as a conceptual
basis and tries to define something more extensive, but (unlike EPL
1.0) attempts to do so by articulating something bright line instead
of relying on some legal notion of derivative works.
https://identi.ca/jxself/comment/ViGIl7lARfuc83wC6-qqkw reply to
https://identi.ca/mlinksva/note/lizdsdoNSUe_6TXGyr4nRw notes that
proprietary nullification would not kick in for a non-copyleft license,
implying (if I understand correctly) that a permissive license could be
offered in private, allowing incorporation into proprietary work, thus
still circumventing copyleft through dual licensing.
The obvious way to close this loophole is to make the nullification kick
in upon offer of any non-copyleft license of equivalent strength.
As the copyleft-next draft now has a network services clause, the only
equivalent strength other license would be AGPL. Also changed derivative
works section accordingly.
I've no idea whether this commit is the correct way to address the
problem, if it is deemed a problem.
You can read the above again at