Fwd: Re: RPL version 1.1

[Randall Burns]

I got back with the TPI CEO on the RPL, what follows
is his reply to Mahesh T Pai's comments.

RJB

--- Scott Shattuck <ss at technicalpursuit.com> wrote:
> > From: Mahesh T Pai <paivakil at vsnl.net>
> > To: Randall Burns <randall_burns at yahoo.com>
> > Cc: license-discuss at opensource.org
> > Subject: Re: RPL version 1.1
> > Date: 16 Oct 2002 19:04:38 +0530
> > 
> > 
> > Randall Burns wrote:
> > 
> >  > 5.0 ...... Nothing in this License shall be
> interpreted to prohibit
> >  >  Licensor from licensing under different terms
> from this License
> >  > any code that Licensor otherwise would have a
> right to license.
> > 
> > Well, under other provisionsof this license, you
> get the copyright to
> > contributions to the source code.  Then you will
> distribute other's
> > contributions under your own different license.
> > 
> > Well, ....
> 
> We do not get copyright ownership of contributors
> code. They retain the
> copyright to their work at all times, however they
> have to agree as with
> other open source licenses, to allow their software
> to be licensed under
> the terms of the RPL. There is nothing in this
> license that would cause
> another author's code to become copyright TPI. 
> 
> This clause is included to ensure that the Licensor
> can pursue a
> dual-licensing strategy, nothing more. If there is
> terminology that
> would support that goal better then we're open to
> it.
> 
> > 
> >  > As a condition to exercising the rights and
> licenses granted
> >  > hereunder, You hereby assume sole
> responsibility to secure any
> >  > other intellectual property rights needed, if
> any. .... it is Your
> >  > responsibility to acquire that license before
> distributing the
> >  > Licensed Software.
> > 
> > If licenses from others is required, and if they
> insist on royalties,
> > how can you call the s/w 'open'?
> > 
> 
> APSL 1.2 Section 2.3
> 
> > See OSD # 7:-
> > 	7. Distribution of License
> > 	
> > 	The rights attached to the program must apply to
> all to whom 	
> > 	the program is redistributed without the need for
> execution of
> > 	an additional license by those parties.
> > 
> >  > (6,4) b. Source Code Availability. You must
> notify Licensor within
> >  > one (1) month of the date You initially Deploy
> of the availability
> >  > of Source Code to Your Extensions ,,,,,
> > 
> > Once again, OSD # 7.
> 
> As I read it, no additional license execution is
> required by this
> clause, whose requirement is simply one of providing
> community
> notification, preferable through the focal point of
> the original
> Licensor, but alternatively through a public news
> group or other forum a
> Google search would turn up. The Licensor and
> Contributors must be able
> to feel confident however that all Extensions
> covered under this license
> are published for the good of the community and that
> people are not able
> to keep their extensions private simply by failing
> to announce them.
> 
> > 
> > These conditions amount to a restriction on
> further re-distribution.
> > 
> 
> I don't see any restrictions on re-distribution
> here. The clause
> covering the potential for third-party licenses to
> be required is in
> several OSI approved licenses while the notification
> clause applies only
> to the first deployment of Extensions (unless the
> means for aquiring
> updates over time should change). Neither appears to
> create a
> restriction on re-distribution.
> 
> >  > 6.6 Conflicts With Other Licenses. .... this
> License. Such
> >  > permission will be granted at the sole
> discretion of the Licensor.
> > 
> > Would not such permission contaminate s/w under
> this license?
> > 
> 
> The GPL has a clause almost identical in intent to
> this one, which is to
> provide a clearly defined mechanism for determining
> how to mix a viral
> license with other potentially viral licenses etc. 
> 
> From the GPL, version 2:
> 
> 10. If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program
> into other free
> programs whose distribution conditions are
> different, write to the
> author to ask for permission. For software which is
> copyrighted by the
> Free Software Foundation, write to the Free Software
> Foundation; we
> sometimes make exceptions for this. Our decision
> will be guided by the
> two goals of preserving the free status of all
> derivatives of our free
> software and of promoting the sharing and reuse of
> software generally.
> 
> 
> >  > 7.1 If You create or use a modified version of
> this License,..
> > 
> > Does this provision serve any purpose other than
> adding to the license 
> > size?
> > 
> 
> Yes. Since the license is Copyright Technical
> Pursuit Inc. nothing other
> than this clause would allow a party to create a
> legal derivative
> license. While the OSI wants to encourage use of
> existing licenses,
> that's a decision the OSI makes on a
> license-by-license basis. Our goal
> however is to support other vendors who wish to
> create licenses for
> their own software, open or otherwise. Such vendors
> are free to use the
> RPL as a template thanks to this clause. 
> 
> > 
> >  > The application of the United Nations
> Convention on Contracts for
> >  > the International Sale of Goods is expressly
> excluded.
> > 
> > I am not aware of the US / Colorado law.  But, if
> the US is a party to 
> > the convention, my understanding of the law of
> international 
> > obligations is that the courts in the US are bound
> to enforce the 
> > Convention.
> 
> This one's open for discussion. I'm not a lawyer and
> am willing to hear
> from qualified legal counsel on this question.
> 
> > 
> 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3