Fwd: Re: RPL version 1.1

Sun Oct 20 20:08:41 UTC 2002

on Wed, Oct 16, 2002, Randall Burns (randall_burns at yahoo.com) wrote:
> I got back with the TPI CEO on the RPL, what follows is his reply to
> Mahesh T Pai's comments.

If you're going to post off-list messages back to list, please ensure
that quoting attributions are correct.  The leading '> > >' aren't
arbitrary, but indicate who said what.  In a licensing discussion this
can be particularly significant.

Following is my best effort at repair, no assurance of accuracy is given.

> 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
> 
> 

-- 
Karsten M. Self <kmself at ix.netcom.com>        http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
 What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
   Übersoft:  Standing on the necks of giants.
     http://www.ubersoft.net/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20021020/9787e825/attachment.sig>