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.
After a considerable and unfortunate hiatus I have resumed development
of copyleft-next and feel it is close to appropriate for release of
v.0.4.0. Especially given the dormancy I thought I would point any
remaining and interested readers of this list to the latest draft:
The most notable changes are the following:
(Non-GPL) license compatibility is now dealt with through reference
to a brief illustrative appendix list of licenses (which include MPL
2.0, EPL 1.0, and LGPLv3 as well as some non-copyleft licenses).
The issue of compliance with export control regulations is dealt
with, something which I have come to view as sorely lacking in the GPL.
This is a new section containing an attempt at an Affero-style
condition. Don't laugh at this attempt without trying it yourself
first (though I should disclose that my attempt took place within the
space of an hour at most this evening). The inclusion of this condition
is notable given that at an earlier stage I specifically had decided
not to have an Affero-like condition in the main body of the license.
The original licensor can opt out. There is a special 'Corresponding
Source' definition here that is not identical to the one for
distribution of Object Code.
Section 4: The old 'poison pill' provision now includes a definition of
I have eliminated the effort to include an Apache License 2.0 section
5-style mechanism for formalizing the 'inbound=outbound' rule.
The nice folks over at the Free as in Freedom oggcast have now
made available a recording of the talk I gave at FOSDEM 2013 [sic] on
copyleft-next, which was shortly after the 0.1.0 release.
At the time I gave the talk I believed it was suboptimal, but
listening to it now, I think it's actually pretty good. It makes me
want to resume active development (which a while back I thought I was
doing, I know).
The recording is followed by some interesting commentary by the
co-hosts (Karen Sandler and Bradley Kuhn).
Towards the end of their discussion, Karen made a good criticism of the
harshness of the plank of HBR that says that top-posted replies shall
be ignored, as, while well-intended as a method of discouraging lawyer
involvement, it is also likely to discourage newcomers or really
anyone not coming from old-school developer culture. (I note though that
at FOSDEM the room erupted in applause when I mentioned that HBR had
such a plank.) So I'll be revising that plank in a way Karen and Bradley
suggested on the oggcast.