<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
  </head>
  <body>
    How so? It's easy to say that any limitation is a use restriction -
    saying that one has to include a copy of the license discriminates
    against those who don't want to. So can you elaborate how this
    restriction on output discriminates against a field of endeavor or a
    person or group?<br>
    <br>
    Pam<br>
    <br>
    <div class="moz-signature">Pamela S. Chestek<br>
      Chestek Legal<br>
      4641 Post St.<br>
      Unit 4316<br>
      El Dorado Hills, CA 95762<br>
      +1 919-800-8033<br>
      <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a><br>
      <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.chesteklegal.com">www.chesteklegal.com</a><br>
      <br>
      <a href="https://calendly.com/pamela-chesteklegal/30min">Set a
        meeting with me</a></div>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/3/2025 8:41 AM, Bruce Perens via
      License-discuss wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAK2MWOvuW+27NwF2POF77KG7s=CRXB6FTapsvEq3gzkjJdi0zQ@mail.gmail.com">
      <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
      <div dir="auto">
        <div>The functional output restrictionn would keep it from being
          an Open Source license. It's pretty clearly a use restriction.</div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div data-smartmail="gmail_signature">
          <div dir="ltr">
            <div dir="ltr">
              <div>Bruce Perens K6BP</div>
            </div>
          </div>
        </div>
      </div>
      <br>
      <div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container">
        <div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Dec 3, 2025, 08:23 Gil
          Yehuda &lt;<a href="mailto:tenorgil@gmail.com"
            moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">tenorgil@gmail.com</a>&gt;
          wrote:<br>
        </div>
        <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
          .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
          <div style="line-break:after-white-space">
            <div style="line-break:after-white-space">Jay, 
              <div>If you intend to ask for critique, there\u2019s quite a
                bit \u2014 from nitpicking details to fundamental flaws. I\u2019ll
                list some of the apparent ones below as I read the
                license text.</div>
              <div>If you intend to suggest this as a new open source
                license that would meet the OSD, I don\u2019t think this will
                do.</div>
              <div><br>
              </div>
              <div>As I read the license:</div>
              <div>
                <ul>
                  <li>Preamble: Licenses are documents that grant rights
                    under conditions. This text suggests that the
                    license can guarantee freedom, indeed \u201cradical\u201d
                    freedom (I\u2019m not sure of the difference) in software
                    architecture (not just code?). Licenses should
                    articulate the rights they grant and the conditions
                    under which those rights are granted. Preambles are
                    great to convey intent which helps when trying to
                    interpret ambiguity; but they also reveal cases
                    where the intent is to express a wish for how things
                    ought to be in the world. That\u2019s better expressed in
                    a manifesto, not a legal document.</li>
                  <li>\u201cIntimate Communication\u201d is one of my favorite
                    terms found in software licenses since it makes
                    people think we\u2019re also dabbling in marriage
                    counseling. My constructive comment here is that
                    when licenses say \u201cThis includes, but is not limited
                    to\u201d that automatically creates a speed bump where a
                    reader (and their lawyer) have to imagine if this
                    includes something surprisingly not intended. It
                    creates a very broad scope \u2014 and that\u2019s going to
                    warn me to stay away from using code under this
                    license because I might intent to comply only to
                    learn that the scope was even broader than assumed.</li>
                  <li>\u201cContent Output\u201d is defined with two terms \u201chuman
                    consumption or data storage\u201d \u2014 I understand the
                    first to exclude non-human uses and the second to
                    exclude the use of data that is not stored. I note
                    this because of the next phrase...</li>
                  <li>\u201cDeployment\u201d is defined with a curious inclusion
                    of the term \u201cinternally or externally\u201d which I
                    assume means in the context of a corporation (not of
                    \u201chuman consumption\u201d in the above clause \u2014 right?!)
                    If so, then \u201cinternally\u201d suggests that if I deploy
                    my application onto my work computer for use by my
                    work colleagues, then the copyright license
                    considers this to be \u201cdeployment\u2019 subject to
                    copyright protection. I do not believe that would
                    hold up in the current interpretation of copyright
                    laws. </li>
                  <li>\u201cConsequently\u201d (line 40) is where this becomes
                    quite challenging. If I create a system with code
                    licensed under TRPL 1.0 that shares data with any
                    proprietary software to achieve a unified functional
                    goal \u2014 this license declares that the proprietary
                    software becomes part of a "Combined Work\u201d that I
                    must release its source code under the terms of this
                    license. But what if that proprietary software is
                    not mine to release? I might not even have the
                    source code? Let\u2019s say I license the proprietary
                    edition of Postman and use it to make an API call to
                    software under TRPL 1.0 \u2014 internally (to my
                    corporation, not in my body). I now have to acquire
                    and release Postman\u2019s proprietary source code under
                    the TRPL 1.0 license? How would I go about doing
                    that? Since there\u2019s no definition of \u201crelease\u201d here,
                    can I assume that if I deploy internally, then I can
                    release internally too? You see that would not help
                    promote your intent. This section of the license
                    seems to convey how you wish software would work \u2014
                    but it does not clarify how I, a potential user of
                    software licensed under this license, needs to do to
                    make the world work that way. </li>
                </ul>
                <div><br>
                </div>
                <div>I\u2019m concerned there is little practical use of this
                  license since any software licensed this way, no
                  matter how appealing that software may be, is
                  automatically going to pose a threat to the rest of my
                  software. Given that software is subject to copyright,
                  and that as a user of software, I seek to honor other
                  people\u2019s copyrights, this license would make it nearly
                  impossible to do so. I\u2019d always have to limit my use
                  of this software to ensure I don\u2019t inadvertently
                  infringe other people\u2019s rights.</div>
              </div>
              <div><br>
              </div>
              <div>Rather than a license, maybe we can collectively
                imagine what the past 40-50 years of technology would
                have been like had there been no copyright on source
                code. I imagine it would be different \u2014 better in some
                ways, worse in others. This license appears to invoke
                that imagination. But since source code is subject to
                copyright laws, I think the licenses should do their
                best to work within that context, granting rights that
                the grantor wishes to grant, and imposing conditions
                that the users of the software wish to, and can, comply
                with. This text falls short on the second part, at least
                for me. </div>
              <div><br>
              </div>
              <div>Gil</div>
              <div><br>
              </div>
              <div><br
                  id="m_-409476912140283522lineBreakAtBeginningOfMessage">
                <div><br>
                  <blockquote type="cite">
                    <div>On Dec 3, 2025, at 12:59\u202fAM, Jay Patel &lt;<a
                        href="mailto:jaypatel.ani@gmail.com"
                        target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"
                        moz-do-not-send="true"
                        class="moz-txt-link-freetext">jaypatel.ani@gmail.com</a>&gt;
                      wrote:</div>
                    <br>
                    <div>
                      <div dir="auto">I am reaching out to community to
                        collect feedback on the proposed license.
                        <div dir="auto"><br>
                        </div>
                        <div dir="auto">Here is text of License:</div>
                        <div dir="auto"><br>
                        </div>
                        <div dir="auto"><a
                            href="https://github.com/trplfoundation/trpl-license/blob/main/LICENSE"
                            target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"
                            moz-do-not-send="true"
                            class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://github.com/trplfoundation/trpl-license/blob/main/LICENSE</a></div>
                        <div dir="auto"><br>
                        </div>
                        <div dir="auto">Thanks,</div>
                        <div dir="auto"><br>
                        </div>
                        <div dir="auto">Jay</div>
                        <div dir="auto"><br>
                        </div>
                      </div>
                      _______________________________________________<br>
                      The opinions expressed in this email are those of
                      the sender and not necessarily those of the Open
                      Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open
                      Source Initiative will be sent from an <a
                        href="http://opensource.org" target="_blank"
                        rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">opensource.org</a>
                      email address.<br>
                      <br>
                      License-discuss mailing list<br>
                      <a
                        href="mailto:License-discuss@lists.opensource.org"
                        target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"
                        moz-do-not-send="true"
                        class="moz-txt-link-freetext">License-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a><br>
                      <a
href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org"
                        target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"
                        moz-do-not-send="true"
                        class="moz-txt-link-freetext">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org</a><br>
                    </div>
                  </blockquote>
                </div>
                <br>
              </div>
            </div>
          </div>
          _______________________________________________<br>
          The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender
          and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative.
          Official statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent
          from an <a href="http://opensource.org" rel="noreferrer
            noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">opensource.org</a>
          email address.<br>
          <br>
          License-discuss mailing list<br>
          <a href="mailto:License-discuss@lists.opensource.org"
            target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true"
            class="moz-txt-link-freetext">License-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a><br>
          <a
href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org"
            rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
            moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org</a><br>
        </blockquote>
      </div>
      <br>
      <fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
      <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.

License-discuss mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:License-discuss@lists.opensource.org">License-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org</a>
</pre>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>