Fwd: Re: RPL version 1.1

Tue Oct 22 21:20:30 UTC 2002

I haven't seen much response here. I think that Scott
handled the issues that Mahesh T Pai brought up.

If noone has any additional complaints here, what is
the next step in the approval process for the RPL?

We'd really like to move forward here.

RJB

--- "Karsten M. Self" <kmself at ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> 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
> 
=== message truncated ===

> ATTACHMENT part 2 application/pgp-signature 

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3