<div dir="ltr">This was garble: "no significant copyrightable component of the original work persists in the created executable."<div>It should be: "no significant copyrightable component of the compiler persists in the created executable."</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Dec 3, 2025 at 11:40\u202fAM Bruce Perens <<a href="mailto:bruce@perens.com">bruce@perens.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 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><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><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"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Dec 3, 2025 at 10:35\u202fAM McCoy Smith <mccoy@lexpan.law> 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"><u></u>
<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">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a><br>
<a href="http://www.chesteklegal.com" target="_blank">www.chesteklegal.com</a><br>
<br>
<a href="https://calendly.com/pamela-chesteklegal/30min" target="_blank">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">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_-2007536382795208300m_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">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">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">opensource.org</a>
email address.<br>
<br>
License-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:License-discuss@lists.opensource.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">License-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">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">opensource.org</a>
email address.<br>
<br>
License-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:License-discuss@lists.opensource.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">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">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">opensource.org</a> email address.
License-discuss mailing list
<a href="mailto:License-discuss@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">License-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a>
<a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">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">opensource.org</a> email address.
License-discuss mailing list
<a href="mailto:License-discuss@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">License-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a>
<a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">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">opensource.org</a> email address.<br>
<br>
License-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:License-discuss@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">License-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">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>
</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>