<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;"><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><div style="overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; 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 class="MailOutline"><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="lineBreakAtBeginningOfMessage"><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Dec 3, 2025, at 12:59\u202fAM, Jay Patel <jaypatel.ani@gmail.com> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><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">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 opensource.org email address.<br><br>License-discuss mailing list<br>License-discuss@lists.opensource.org<br>http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org<br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></body></html>