<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/3/2025 11:40 AM, Bruce Perens via
License-discuss wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAK2MWOtAu5qXJi_v9qtNRBrjT8U373YVwQvt1+WiS3P3RHuNXw@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">OK, I dismissed the license quickly, which might
leave the submitter in the dark. Thus:
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The term in question is the following:
<div><br>
</div>
<div><i>4.1 Functional Output<br>
If the Program is used to generate Functional Output
(e.g., a compiler generating binaries, a transpiler
generating code, or an ML trainer generating Model
Weights), that output is considered a derivative work of
the Program.<br>
* You must license such Functional Output under this
License or a compatible Free Software license.<br>
* You cannot claim exclusive proprietary rights over
Functional Output generated by the Program.</i><br>
</div>
<div><i><br>
</i></div>
<div>First, exclusive of the OSD, consider that for the
purpose of enforcement this is primarily a copyright
license. How would you assert in court that a violation of
the above terms infringes the copyright of a compiler under
those terms? The code generated by the compiler is entirely
functional, and not itself copyrightable under 17 USC
102(b). Note that the license itself acknowledges that this
is "functional". The code is a straightforward translation
of the input to instructions that perform the exact action
specified by the input, with perhaps trivial modification
for the purpose of optimization. The effect of translating a
program as found in CAI v. Altai applies, with the addition
that this is a machine translation not expressing any
creativity in the translation. A separate work is not
created, the output still bears the copyright of the
original work, no significant copyrightable component of the
original work persists in the created executable.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>It is not an accurate statement that "code generated by the
compiler is entirely functional, and not itself copyrightable
under 17 USC 102(b)." The Copyright Office considers source code
and executable code to be two different manifestations of the same
work, a "computer program" (Copyright Compendium § 721.5), and a
computer program surely is copyrightable. Just because it's in
executable form (having been compiled) doesn't mean it's not
protected by copyright.</p>
<p>But that seems orthogonal to your point. Your hypo seems to be
that the compiler is under this license ("infringes the copyright
of the compiler") and the question is about the relationship of
the output to the compiler. You dismiss the possibility that some
copyrightable portions of the compiler end up in the compiled
code, but I understand that it is possible - libraries, for
example. So it's at least theoretically possible that the output
could be a derivative work of the compiler, and if so, this is a
quasi-copyleft requirement (more about that in a moment), which is
acceptable for an open source license. </p>
<p>Now let's assume that the compiled work is not a derivative work
of the compiler. Where a work isn't actually a derivative work of
the compiler, but the license says it is, we have a significant
interpretation problem with the scope of the license. Has the
license author acted as their own lexicographer and redefined
"derivative work" for the purpose of their license, or are we to
adhere to the definitive under U.S. Copyright Law, perhaps even
extraterritorially? Certainly an interpretation problem for the
license, but arguably not inconsistent with the OSD.</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAK2MWOtAu5qXJi_v9qtNRBrjT8U373YVwQvt1+WiS3P3RHuNXw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Second, if we ignore the enforceability issues of the
license for the purpose of analyzing the intent of its
terms, the use restriction here is that the program can not
be used to process any input intended to be under another
license than that of the program itself. This obviously
precludes the use of the program to produce not only
proprietary software, but Open Source under any license
other than its own.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I quibble with "under any license other than its own" because the
requirement is that the Output be licensed "under this License or
a compatible Free Software license." So there are other license
options, which include the availability of permissive licenses
(why I called this license quasi-copyleft). If the Output can be
under a permissive license, the Output can be used for proprietary
software. So this license doesn't discriminate based on fields of
endeavor, i.e., commercialization. </p>
<p>Also, copyleft has long been accepted as complying with the OSD.
So, even if this license required any derivative work to be under
this license only, it would not be a reason it's not an open
source license. Certainly the GPLs make commercialization more
challenging, but they don't prevent it altogether, either
expressly or by operation.</p>
<p>So the only OSD problem I see is those situations where the
Output cannot be considered a derivative work of the origin work,
which I would consider a violation of OSD9 - but maybe not even
then, at least not by the letter of OSD9, if the Output isn't
software per se. But enforcing copyleft for true derivative works
is not a problem.</p>
<p>I want to be clear that I haven't reviewed the license in any
depth, and Jay's comments all seem quite sound as reasons why it's
not yet suitable for submission, I'm just reacting to this issue.</p>
<p>Pam</p>
<p>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></p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAK2MWOtAu5qXJi_v9qtNRBrjT8U373YVwQvt1+WiS3P3RHuNXw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This doesn't mean the license would be a bad idea, if it
had legal solidity presently lacking. Only that the community
developed around it should be called something other than Open
Source. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> Thanks</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> Bruce</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Dec 3, 2025 at
10:35\u202fAM McCoy Smith <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mccoy@lexpan.law"><mccoy@lexpan.law></a> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>I agree with this sentiment. If you're going to claim
something is a "use restriction" I think you need to: 1)
explain how that is an OSD violation (FWIW the OSD doesn't
prohibit "use restrictions" OSDs 5 & 6 prohibit
"discrimination" OSD 9 prohibits restrictions "on other
software" and OSD 8 prohibits specificity as to specific
products); 2) explain which language in the license is
problematic, and why. "Functional output" in this license
is addressed in 4.1, and I'm not seeing how those
requirements are "restrictions" or "discrimination."</p>
<p>I do find the definition and obligations around
"Deployment" problematic because I believe Freedom Zero is
an inherent part of the OSD, although I'm not sure that
it's something that flows from the explicit language from
the OSD. This license appears to be Freedom Zero
violating.</p>
<p>[all the above is personal opinions not representative of
the OSI board]</p>
<div>On 12/3/2025 10:22 AM, Pamela Chestek wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"> 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>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 href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a><br>
<a href="http://www.chesteklegal.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">www.chesteklegal.com</a><br>
<br>
<a href="https://calendly.com/pamela-chesteklegal/30min"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Set a meeting
with me</a></div>
<div>On 12/3/2025 8:41 AM, Bruce Perens via
License-discuss wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<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>
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Bruce Perens K6BP</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Dec 3, 2025,
08:23 Gil Yehuda <<a
href="mailto:tenorgil@gmail.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">tenorgil@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div>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_805029952367984301m_-409476912140283522lineBreakAtBeginningOfMessage">
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>On Dec 3, 2025, at 12:59\u202fAM, Jay
Patel <<a
href="mailto:jaypatel.ani@gmail.com"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">jaypatel.ani@gmail.com</a>>
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"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
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"
rel="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" rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank" 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" 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>
</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"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
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></fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
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"
moz-do-not-send="true">opensource.org</a> email address.
License-discuss mailing list
<a href="mailto:License-discuss@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">License-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a>
<a
href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
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"
moz-do-not-send="true">opensource.org</a> email address.
License-discuss mailing list
<a href="mailto:License-discuss@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">License-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a>
<a
href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</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"
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" 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" 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>
<div><br clear="all">
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span class="gmail_signature_prefix">-- </span><br>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Bruce Perens K6BP</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">_______________________________________________
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>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
Pamela S. Chestek<br>
Former Board Member<br>
Open Source Initiative<br>
</div>
</body>
</html>