faq

[William Edney]

The Reciprocal Public License (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/rpl1.5.txt 
) requires in Section 6.4 subsection C that modifications to the  
licensed work be made available to the community at large within one  
month of the date of your 'deployment' of those changes (deployment  
including internal distribution within an organization - the RPL  
defines deployment as "other than personal or research use"). This can  
be done via a website, etc. to ease distribution.

As David states, it neither reassigns copyright or assigns more rights  
than those received by the modifier.

It is meant to ameliorate some of the 'free-as-in-loader' aspects of  
most open source licenses, which may be what the originator of this  
thread is after.

Cheers,

- Bill

On May 29, 2009, at 2:01 AM, David Woolley wrote:

> Jesus Omar Duran Villan wrote:
>> 2009/5/28 Jesus Omar Duran Villan <joduranvillan at misena.edu.co <mailto:joduranvillan at misena.edu.co 
>> >>
>>    My license required to send the original author of the software
>>    source code of any modifications is a Open Source license?
>
> I seem to be missing the start of this thread.
>
> I can't remember if such licences are within the OSD, but they are  
> disliked, as too onerous, by the open source community.
>
> Any licence that required such changes to be assigned to the  
> original author would definitely not be open source.  I doubt that  
> any licence that required them to be licenced back with any more  
> rights than the modifier received would be considered open source.   
> One that required the same licence would be very onerous, as every  
> modifier would have to send to every other modifier if they took  
> advantge of the contributions.
>
>
> -- 
> David Woolley
> Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
> RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
> that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.