<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7036.0">
<TITLE>RPL 1.3 Revision</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/rtf format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Hi,</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">I'd like to submit the following revisions to the currently approved Reciprocal Public License 1.1 on file with the OSI. I've attached both text and HTML versions of the new revision for easy review, and also detailed the specific changes and their rationales below.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE=2 COLOR="#000000"> <<...>> </FONT><FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE=2 COLOR="#000000"> <<...>> </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">I'd really appreciate it if you could find time to discuss this update and approve it either at your April or May meeting. It would help some of those who've contacted us about the RPL to make use of an existing OSI license if we could get the new version approved and posted as the latest revision on the OSI site. Thanks in advance for you effort in this regard.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The changes between version 1.1 and version 1.3 supplied here focus on issues raised either by the FSF or by others who have contacted Technical Pursuit regarding use of the RPL for their own software projects/products. We have tried with this revision to address those concerns while retaining the intended goals of the RPL and conformance to OSI requirements.</FONT></P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">According to the FSF the Reciprocal Public License is a non-free license because of three problems:</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">1. It puts limits on prices charged for an initial copy.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">2. It requires notification of the original developer for publication of a modified version. </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">3. It requires publication of any modified version that an organization uses, even privately.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">In support of reusing the RPL for other open source projects there were two additional issues:</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">4. It contained references to a Technical Pursuit License (TPL) in EXHIBIT A (Notice)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">5. It required a jurisdiction in Colorado which could not be altered without having to rename the license</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">We've addressed these combined concerns as follows (line numbers refer to the txt version attached):</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">1. Per FSF (1) we no longer restrict prices charged for verbatim copies thanks to changes in Lines 44-45, 49-50, and 353-355 mirroring the GPLs stance on this matter.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">2. Per FSF (2) we now only require notification of the community at large (not Licensor) via posting to a news group, blog, or other indexable web site per Lines 75-80, 275-283, and 328-332. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">3. Per Reuse (4) we adjusted lines 553-567 so EXHIBIT A is clean of references to Technical Pursuit.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">4. Per Reuse (5), we’ve adjusted Lines 380-384 to allow jurisdiction changes without renaming the license.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">5. To also encourage Reuse we removed onerous requirements for maintaining a CHANGES file by altering lines 69-70, 286-295, and 328-332.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">6. The remaining lines with changes (2, 4, 90, etc) change version numbers and/or dates for the license itself.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">We made the first 2 changes addressing FSF issues in an attempt to get their objections down to “you have to release your code” and “you have to say you released your code” so any remaining objections are limited to the feature which defines the essense of the RPL -- that you have to reciprocate by releasing your code, regardless of where or how you might deploy it.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">We're not aware of any changes to the license text that would in any way alter it's conformance to the Open Source Definition, and would ask that you review this license and approve it as the "current" RPL version.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">To assist you with your review process detailed notes on the changes are listed below:</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Line 2: Updated version number and effective date.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Line 4: Updated copyright date</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Line 44-45: Added “, or for physically transferring a copy of the Licensed Software as you received it.” to the end of this clause.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Line 49-50: Removed “the Licensed Software, or “ so this applies only to “Your Extensions”. Also removed “ where such reproduction and distribution involve physical media.”</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Line 69-70: Changed “both in the Source Code and in a text file titled "CHANGES" distributed with “ to “in the Source Code of”</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Line 75-80: Changed “Licensor” to “software community”. Added notification text of "by posting to appropriate news groups, mailing lists, or web sites where a search engine accessible to the public can index your post in relationship to the Software, including in such notice a brief description of the Extensions, the distinctive title used, and instructions on how to acquire the Source Code.” </FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Line 90: Changed version number.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Line 275-283: Removed references to Licensed Software, focusing on Extensions. Require an “Electronic Distribution Medium” for source code.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Line 286-295: Removed references to CHANGES file and a cross-reference in documenting modifications making requirements less onerous.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Line 328-332: Removed references to CONTRIB file, making requirements less onerous. Replaced “Licensor” with “software community”. Updated to allow 1 month after deployment before notification required. Allow notification to community at large purely via posting to the net.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Line 353-355: Added “ You may also charge a nominal fee for physical transfer of a copy of the Licensed Software as you received it.”</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Line 380-384: Replaced EXHIBIT A alteration option with alteration of Section 13.8 purely to modify the legal Jurisdiction or Venue to allow alteration of the notice or jurisdiction and still call it the RPL.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Line 553-555: Removed option of altering notice via Section 7.1</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Line 556-567 Removed references to Technical Pursuit License and TPI. Notice now refers only to the RPL so no alterations should be necessary. Updated version numbers/dates.</FONT></P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">We'd like to assist the OSI in any way necessary to get this new version of the RPL approved so that Technical Pursuit and the other companies making use of the RPL can benefit from a more compassionate version of the license regarding notification requirements, pricing, etc. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Thank you in advance for your attention! Let me know if there’s anything you need from me to help get v1.3 approved :)</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">ss</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Scott Shattuck</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">RPL Author</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</BODY>
</HTML>