| Re: [science-iwg] Fwd: Re: [triquetrum] Dual License Triquetrum under EPLv1.0 and EPL-1.0-BSD (#46) |
|
On 2/16/2016 2:35 PM, Erwin de Ley
wrote:
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. Changing open source license terms is an extremely time-consuming and difficult thing to do. However, for those who are interested in such things there are on-going (but currently dormant) discussions about revising the EPL at epl-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxx 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. UC Berkley is the first institution in 12 years to raise these concerns. I would not rush to any assumptions about their conclusions.
|
