Subject: Re: EPICS Open License (U.S. gov't DOE / ANL project).
From: Karl Fogel <>
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2011 14:33:04 -0400

John Cowan <> writes:
>> Their license seems pretty open source-ish to me, at first glance,
>> though it might be more obviously if the word "specified" were removed
>> from clause 4(c).  
>I think that means that it's not enough to say "Portions of the
>software have been changed"; you must specify (to a reasonable degree
>of granularity) which portions.  Such clauses are archaisms in modern
>software development environments with diff tools and source-code control,
>but they aren't (IMHO, IANAL, TINLA) against the OSD.

I'd see if we can get them to change it, just to avoid burdening
licensors with archaic tasks.

>> Do we have any history of consideration of this license?  Should we
>> invite them to submit it?  
>We should, yes.

Thank you for the feedback!