Use Reciprocal Public License or new license
After reviewing the existing approved licenses, our team thought the Reciprocal Public License 1.1 meets our needs, however our industrial affairs team wanted to make some small changes. Could you let me know if these 4 changes are reasonable, or if we need to go through the new license approval process? Thanks, Paul Fearn Reciprocal Public License Version 1.1, November 1, 2002 - 1. Does the copyright statement at top of license need to stay as Copyright (C) 2001-2002 Technical Pursuit Inc., All Rights Reserved. or should it be changed to this? Copyright (C) 2004 Caisis Team, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, All Rights Reserved. 2. In Preamble paragraph 2, our industrial affairs team wanted to add the including Licensor phrase after third parties? Would this require creating a new license? This License is based on the concept of reciprocity. In exchange for being granted certain rights under the terms of this License to Licensor's Software, whose Source Code You have access to, You are required to reciprocate by providing equal access and rights to all third parties [including Licensor] to the Source Code of any Modifications, Derivative Works, and Required Components for execution of same (collectively defined as Extensions) that You Deploy by Deploying Your Extensions under the terms of this License. In this fashion the available Source Code related to the original Licensed Software is enlarged for the benefit of everyone. -- 3. In Preamble item c from this section Under the terms of this License You may:, the group also wanted to add the including Licensor phrase. c. Create Extensions to the Licensed Software consistent with the rights granted by this License, provided that You make the Source Code to any Extensions You Deploy available to all third parties [including Licensor], under the terms of this License, document Your Modifications clearly, and title all Extensions distinctly from the Licensed Software. -- 4. Are these changes to Exhibit A correct? Copyright (C) 1999-2004 P.Alli, J.Fajardo, P.Fearn, D.Kuo, K.Regan, F.Sculli (Caisis Team), Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, All Rights Reserved. Unless explicitly acquired and licensed from Licensor under the MSKCC Software Transer Agreement(STA), the contents of this file are subject to the Reciprocal Public License (RPL) Version 1.1, or subsequent versions as allowed by the RPL, and You may not copy or use this file in either source code or executable form, except in compliance with the terms and conditions of the RPL. You may obtain a copy of both the STA and the RPL (the Licenses) at http://www.cancerdb.org. = Please note that this e-mail and any files transmitted with it may be privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading, dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this communication or any of its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message and deleting this message, any attachments, and all copies and backups from your computer. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Use Reciprocal Public License or new license
Hi Paul, On Mar 19, 2004, at 7:29 AM, Fearn, Paul A./Urology wrote: After reviewing the existing approved licenses, our team thought the Reciprocal Public License 1.1 meets our needs, however our industrial affairs team wanted to make some small changes. Could you let me know if these 4 changes are reasonable, or if we need to go through the new license approval process? Well, I think that's two different questions. The changes certainly seem reasonable, and making it more explicit/symmetric by saying including Licensor shouldn't hurt OSD compliance. However, I don't know the threshold for when the OSD board needs to make an affirmative statement. I suppose it depends on what you're looking for. Do you want your new license posted on our website, and the ability to advertise OSD compliance? Are you participating in contractual agreements that require OSD compliance? Do you want the original RPL authors to adopt your changes? Or do you just want the warm fuzzy feeling that you're doing the right thing by the community? -- Ernie P. IANAL, TINLA, etc. Thanks, Paul Fearn Reciprocal Public License Version 1.1, November 1, 2002 - 1. Does the copyright statement at top of license need to stay as Copyright (C) 2001-2002 Technical Pursuit Inc., All Rights Reserved. or should it be changed to this? Copyright (C) 2004 Caisis Team, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, All Rights Reserved. 2. In Preamble paragraph 2, our industrial affairs team wanted to add the including Licensor phrase after third parties? Would this require creating a new license? This License is based on the concept of reciprocity. In exchange for being granted certain rights under the terms of this License to Licensor's Software, whose Source Code You have access to, You are required to reciprocate by providing equal access and rights to all third parties [including Licensor] to the Source Code of any Modifications, Derivative Works, and Required Components for execution of same (collectively defined as Extensions) that You Deploy by Deploying Your Extensions under the terms of this License. In this fashion the available Source Code related to the original Licensed Software is enlarged for the benefit of everyone. -- 3. In Preamble item c from this section Under the terms of this License You may:, the group also wanted to add the including Licensor phrase. c. Create Extensions to the Licensed Software consistent with the rights granted by this License, provided that You make the Source Code to any Extensions You Deploy available to all third parties [including Licensor], under the terms of this License, document Your Modifications clearly, and title all Extensions distinctly from the Licensed Software. -- 4. Are these changes to Exhibit A correct? Copyright (C) 1999-2004 P.Alli, J.Fajardo, P.Fearn, D.Kuo, K.Regan, F.Sculli (Caisis Team), Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, All Rights Reserved. Unless explicitly acquired and licensed from Licensor under the MSKCC Software Transer Agreement(STA), the contents of this file are subject to the Reciprocal Public License (RPL) Version 1.1, or subsequent versions as allowed by the RPL, and You may not copy or use this file in either source code or executable form, except in compliance with the terms and conditions of the RPL. You may obtain a copy of both the STA and the RPL (the Licenses) at http://www.cancerdb.org. = Please note that this e-mail and any files transmitted with it may be privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading, dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this communication or any of its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message and deleting this message, any attachments, and all copies and backups from your computer. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: Use Reciprocal Public License or new license
Ernie, Thanks for the feedback. I am specifically looking to 1. advertise OSD compliance (use the OSI Certification Mark) 2. do the right thing by the community Regards, Paul - Do you want your new license posted on our website, and the ability to advertise OSD compliance? Are you participating in contractual agreements that require OSD compliance? Do you want the original RPL authors to adopt your changes? Or do you just want the warm fuzzy feeling that you're doing the right thing by the community? -Original Message- From: Ernest Prabhakar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 2:01 PM To: Fearn, Paul A./Urology Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Use Reciprocal Public License or new license Hi Paul, On Mar 19, 2004, at 7:29 AM, Fearn, Paul A./Urology wrote: After reviewing the existing approved licenses, our team thought the Reciprocal Public License 1.1 meets our needs, however our industrial affairs team wanted to make some small changes. Could you let me know if these 4 changes are reasonable, or if we need to go through the new license approval process? Well, I think that's two different questions. The changes certainly seem reasonable, and making it more explicit/symmetric by saying including Licensor shouldn't hurt OSD compliance. However, I don't know the threshold for when the OSD board needs to make an affirmative statement. I suppose it depends on what you're looking for. Do you want your new license posted on our website, and the ability to advertise OSD compliance? Are you participating in contractual agreements that require OSD compliance? Do you want the original RPL authors to adopt your changes? Or do you just want the warm fuzzy feeling that you're doing the right thing by the community? -- Ernie P. IANAL, TINLA, etc. Thanks, Paul Fearn Reciprocal Public License Version 1.1, November 1, 2002 - 1. Does the copyright statement at top of license need to stay as Copyright (C) 2001-2002 Technical Pursuit Inc., All Rights Reserved. or should it be changed to this? Copyright (C) 2004 Caisis Team, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, All Rights Reserved. 2. In Preamble paragraph 2, our industrial affairs team wanted to add the including Licensor phrase after third parties? Would this require creating a new license? This License is based on the concept of reciprocity. In exchange for being granted certain rights under the terms of this License to Licensor's Software, whose Source Code You have access to, You are required to reciprocate by providing equal access and rights to all third parties [including Licensor] to the Source Code of any Modifications, Derivative Works, and Required Components for execution of same (collectively defined as Extensions) that You Deploy by Deploying Your Extensions under the terms of this License. In this fashion the available Source Code related to the original Licensed Software is enlarged for the benefit of everyone. -- 3. In Preamble item c from this section Under the terms of this License You may:, the group also wanted to add the including Licensor phrase. c. Create Extensions to the Licensed Software consistent with the rights granted by this License, provided that You make the Source Code to any Extensions You Deploy available to all third parties [including Licensor], under the terms of this License, document Your Modifications clearly, and title all Extensions distinctly from the Licensed Software. -- 4. Are these changes to Exhibit A correct? Copyright (C) 1999-2004 P.Alli, J.Fajardo, P.Fearn, D.Kuo, K.Regan, F.Sculli (Caisis Team), Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, All Rights Reserved. Unless explicitly acquired and licensed from Licensor under the MSKCC Software Transer Agreement(STA), the contents of this file are subject to the Reciprocal Public License (RPL) Version 1.1, or subsequent versions as allowed by the RPL, and You may not copy or use this file in either source code or executable form, except in compliance with the terms and conditions of the RPL. You may obtain a copy of both the STA and the RPL (the Licenses) at http://www.cancerdb.org. license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 = Please note that this e-mail and any files transmitted with it may be privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading
Re: Use Reciprocal Public License or new license
On Mar 19, 2004, at 1:12 PM, Fearn, Paul A./Urology wrote: Thanks for the feedback. I am specifically looking to 1. advertise OSD compliance (use the OSI Certification Mark) 2. do the right thing by the community Well, someone official will have to comment on the threshold issue. However, it (naively) looks as if the [including Licensor] clause is intended as a clarification, rather than an substantive change. Is that correct? If that's the case, perhaps you can ask your lawyers whether you can just post a clarification of your intent alongside the license, rather than modifying the actual license. That would perhaps allow you to use the RPL as is. My recollection from this list is that simply changing names of the 'templated' form of the license doesn't affect OSD compliance. However, in some cases you may need to check with the original author of the license to get permission, since not all open source licenses are -themselves- open source. -- Ernie P. IANAL, TINLA, etc. Regards, Paul - Do you want your new license posted on our website, and the ability to advertise OSD compliance? Are you participating in contractual agreements that require OSD compliance? Do you want the original RPL authors to adopt your changes? Or do you just want the warm fuzzy feeling that you're doing the right thing by the community? -Original Message- From: Ernest Prabhakar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 2:01 PM To: Fearn, Paul A./Urology Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Use Reciprocal Public License or new license Hi Paul, On Mar 19, 2004, at 7:29 AM, Fearn, Paul A./Urology wrote: After reviewing the existing approved licenses, our team thought the Reciprocal Public License 1.1 meets our needs, however our industrial affairs team wanted to make some small changes. Could you let me know if these 4 changes are reasonable, or if we need to go through the new license approval process? Well, I think that's two different questions. The changes certainly seem reasonable, and making it more explicit/symmetric by saying including Licensor shouldn't hurt OSD compliance. However, I don't know the threshold for when the OSD board needs to make an affirmative statement. I suppose it depends on what you're looking for. Do you want your new license posted on our website, and the ability to advertise OSD compliance? Are you participating in contractual agreements that require OSD compliance? Do you want the original RPL authors to adopt your changes? Or do you just want the warm fuzzy feeling that you're doing the right thing by the community? -- Ernie P. IANAL, TINLA, etc. Thanks, Paul Fearn Reciprocal Public License Version 1.1, November 1, 2002 - 1. Does the copyright statement at top of license need to stay as Copyright (C) 2001-2002 Technical Pursuit Inc., All Rights Reserved. or should it be changed to this? Copyright (C) 2004 Caisis Team, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, All Rights Reserved. 2. In Preamble paragraph 2, our industrial affairs team wanted to add the including Licensor phrase after third parties? Would this require creating a new license? This License is based on the concept of reciprocity. In exchange for being granted certain rights under the terms of this License to Licensor's Software, whose Source Code You have access to, You are required to reciprocate by providing equal access and rights to all third parties [including Licensor] to the Source Code of any Modifications, Derivative Works, and Required Components for execution of same (collectively defined as Extensions) that You Deploy by Deploying Your Extensions under the terms of this License. In this fashion the available Source Code related to the original Licensed Software is enlarged for the benefit of everyone. -- 3. In Preamble item c from this section Under the terms of this License You may:, the group also wanted to add the including Licensor phrase. c. Create Extensions to the Licensed Software consistent with the rights granted by this License, provided that You make the Source Code to any Extensions You Deploy available to all third parties [including Licensor], under the terms of this License, document Your Modifications clearly, and title all Extensions distinctly from the Licensed Software. -- 4. Are these changes to Exhibit A correct? Copyright (C) 1999-2004 P.Alli, J.Fajardo, P.Fearn, D.Kuo, K.Regan, F.Sculli (Caisis Team), Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, All Rights Reserved. Unless explicitly acquired and licensed from Licensor under the MSKCC Software Transer Agreement(STA), the contents of this file are subject to the Reciprocal Public License (RPL) Version 1.1, or subsequent versions as allowed by the RPL, and You may not copy or use this file
