librelist archives

« back to archive

Modified EPL issue and its impact

Modified EPL issue and its impact

From:
Phil Hagelberg
Date:
2014-02-20 @ 19:20
Hello Leiningen users and contributors!

We had an issue raised a while back about the licensing of
Leiningen. When I started the project, I wanted to license it under the
Eclipse Public License. I copied it from my checkout of Clojure and
stripped the HTML, and as I read through it, I noticed that it specified
New York in the choice of law clause:

> This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of New York and
> the intellectual property laws of the United States of America.

I assumed this was because Rich was a New York resident, so I changed
this to Washington (my state of residence) and carried on my merry way.

It turns out that particular choice was made by the authors of the EPL
itself, not by the person choosing to apply the license. Furthermore,
the EPL doesn't allow modifications to be made to its text. So my
checking in a modified copy of the EPL, I was technically creating an
illicit fork while claiming in the readme to use "the same license as
Clojure".

https://github.com/technomancy/leiningen/issues/1446

I've consulted with some helpful legal folks, and the consensus seems to
be that the best thing to do is to revert the license and post an
explanation of the issue. It's technically possible that some
contributors might object to having their contributions relicensed. If
you have any questions about this, please let me know. But the fact that
the modified license was invalid to begin with puts us in a pretty good
position to just go ahead and fix the license Leiningen ships with,
which I've done here:

https://github.com/technomancy/leiningen/commit/cc41da388b30a6d3577ab6

The one thing that makes the issue a bit more complicated is that since
version 2.3.0 of Leiningen (released last July), projects created with
the `lein new` templates used the same modified EPL and will need to
perform the same revert in their own repositories.

One thing we could use some help with is a script to spider Clojars or
GitHub to identify Clojure projects with the modified EPL so we can
contact the owners about fixing them. Please let me know if you could
help with writing this.

tl;dr: If you've got a project with an EPL that mentions Washington,
please replace it with New York.

Hope that is clear. Happy to answer any further questions on the topic.

-Phil

Re: [leiningen] Modified EPL issue and its impact

From:
Sean Corfield
Date:
2014-02-21 @ 17:45
I grepped through all the Clojure projects on my local machine and the 
only place I found it, that represents a public project, was:

clojure-cookbook/deployment-and-distribution/creating-executable-jar/foo/LICENSE

Sean

On Feb 20, 2014, at 11:20 AM, Phil Hagelberg <phil@hagelb.org> wrote:

> 
> Hello Leiningen users and contributors!
> 
> We had an issue raised a while back about the licensing of
> Leiningen. When I started the project, I wanted to license it under the
> Eclipse Public License. I copied it from my checkout of Clojure and
> stripped the HTML, and as I read through it, I noticed that it specified
> New York in the choice of law clause:
> 
>> This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of New York and
>> the intellectual property laws of the United States of America.
> 
> I assumed this was because Rich was a New York resident, so I changed
> this to Washington (my state of residence) and carried on my merry way.
> 
> It turns out that particular choice was made by the authors of the EPL
> itself, not by the person choosing to apply the license. Furthermore,
> the EPL doesn't allow modifications to be made to its text. So my
> checking in a modified copy of the EPL, I was technically creating an
> illicit fork while claiming in the readme to use "the same license as
> Clojure".
> 
> https://github.com/technomancy/leiningen/issues/1446
> 
> I've consulted with some helpful legal folks, and the consensus seems to
> be that the best thing to do is to revert the license and post an
> explanation of the issue. It's technically possible that some
> contributors might object to having their contributions relicensed. If
> you have any questions about this, please let me know. But the fact that
> the modified license was invalid to begin with puts us in a pretty good
> position to just go ahead and fix the license Leiningen ships with,
> which I've done here:
> 
> https://github.com/technomancy/leiningen/commit/cc41da388b30a6d3577ab6
> 
> The one thing that makes the issue a bit more complicated is that since
> version 2.3.0 of Leiningen (released last July), projects created with
> the `lein new` templates used the same modified EPL and will need to
> perform the same revert in their own repositories.
> 
> One thing we could use some help with is a script to spider Clojars or
> GitHub to identify Clojure projects with the modified EPL so we can
> contact the owners about fixing them. Please let me know if you could
> help with writing this.
> 
> tl;dr: If you've got a project with an EPL that mentions Washington,
> please replace it with New York.
> 
> Hope that is clear. Happy to answer any further questions on the topic.
> 
> -Phil