Proposed License-RPL

[Randall Burns]

--- phil hunt <philh at comuno.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
 
> This is very similar to the GPL. Why not just use
> that?
The big issue is that the GPL allows companies that do
not distribute modifications outside their company to 
sue consultants/employees/contractors that distribute
changes that have been made to GPL code. TPI doesn't
want to support such activity freely.

When TIBET (see www.technicalpursuit.com) was
developed Bruce Perens suggested to our CEO that TIBET
should be dual licensed(offer a regular commercial
license to those that want it and an open source
license to others). The big problem the CEO had with
the GPL was that the GPL allowed companies to make
changes for internal use and prevent
employees/contractors etc from distributing those
changes outside the company.

I was involved in a correspondence with the FSF
attorney on this issue. Frankly, I was rather
surprised that the GPL was so supportive of
corporate/government interests on this point. The
TIBET release was delayed a while until the TPI CEO
came up with the RPL and he recently asked me to help
figure out what it would take to either make the RPL 
OSI compliant.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience
http://launch.yahoo.com
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3