[License-discuss] Total Reciprocity Public License (TRPL v1.0)

Sat Dec 6 03:47:40 UTC 2025

Modified original Licence text into this draft from Feedbacks:

https://github.com/trplfoundation/trpl-license/blob/main/Draft

On Wed, Dec 3, 2025, 10:17 PM Jay Patel <jaypatel.ani at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thank You Gil for feedback.You identified a critical logical loop (the
> 'Postman problem') that would have made compliance impossible.
>
> Maybe adding this address your poins:
> 1. Adding a 'System Library/Standard Tool' exception: To ensure generic
> tools (OS, Browsers, API clients) are not infected, targeting only specific
> functional wrappers.
>
> 2. Tightening 'Intimate Communication': Removing 'not limited to' and
> defining specific dependency types to reduce legal ambiguity.
>
> 3. Clarifying Deployment: Explicitly exempting personal/study use,
> focusing 'Deployment' on organizational/commercial utility.
>
> My goal is 'Stronger than AGPL,' not 'Impossible to Run.' Your feedback
> helps bridge that gap.
>
> Regards,
> Jay
>
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2025, 9:52 PM Gil Yehuda <tenorgil at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Jay,
>> If you intend to ask for critique, there’s quite a bit — from nitpicking
>> details to fundamental flaws. I’ll list some of the apparent ones below as
>> I read the license text.
>> If you intend to suggest this as a new open source license that would
>> meet the OSD, I don’t think this will do.
>>
>> As I read the license:
>>
>>    - Preamble: Licenses are documents that grant rights under
>>    conditions. This text suggests that the license can guarantee freedom,
>>    indeed “radical” freedom (I’m 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’s better expressed in a manifesto,
>>    not a legal document.
>>    - “Intimate Communication” is one of my favorite terms found in
>>    software licenses since it makes people think we’re also dabbling in
>>    marriage counseling. My constructive comment here is that when licenses say
>>    “This includes, but is not limited to” 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 — and
>>    that’s 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.
>>    - “Content Output” is defined with two terms “human consumption or
>>    data storage” — 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...
>>    - “Deployment” is defined with a curious inclusion of the term
>>    “internally or externally” which I assume means in the context of a
>>    corporation (not of “human consumption” in the above clause — right?!) If
>>    so, then “internally” 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 “deployment’ subject to copyright protection. I do not
>>    believe that would hold up in the current interpretation of copyright laws.
>>    - “Consequently” (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 — this
>>    license declares that the proprietary software becomes part of a "Combined
>>    Work” 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’s say I license the proprietary edition of
>>    Postman and use it to make an API call to software under TRPL 1.0 —
>>    internally (to my corporation, not in my body). I now have to acquire and
>>    release Postman’s proprietary source code under the TRPL 1.0 license? How
>>    would I go about doing that? Since there’s no definition of “release” 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 — 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.
>>
>>
>> I’m 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’s copyrights, this license would make it nearly
>> impossible to do so. I’d always have to limit my use of this software to
>> ensure I don’t inadvertently infringe other people’s rights.
>>
>> 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 — 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.
>>
>> Gil
>>
>>
>>
>> On Dec 3, 2025, at 12:59 AM, Jay Patel <jaypatel.ani at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I am reaching out to community to collect feedback on the proposed
>> license.
>>
>> Here is text of License:
>>
>> https://github.com/trplfoundation/trpl-license/blob/main/LICENSE
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jay
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>>
>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>>
>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20251206/2ef98a23/attachment-0001.htm>