<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Sorry, I meant to say I agree with Gil's comment's on the
license, not Jay (the license submitter).</p>
<p>Pam</p>
<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>
pamela@chesteklegal<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.chesteklegal.com">www.chesteklegal.com</a><br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/3/2025 1:56 PM, Pamela Chestek
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:e103d369-a5e2-4049-af5a-d5f9976afb10@opensource.org">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<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 moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com" moz-do-not-send="true">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="http://www.chesteklegal.com" moz-do-not-send="true">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" moz-do-not-send="true"><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 moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:License-discuss@lists.opensource.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">License-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">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>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>