on Wed, Oct 16, 2002, Randall Burns ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > I got back with the TPI CEO on the RPL, what follows is his reply to > Mahesh T Pai's comments.
If you're going to post off-list messages back to list, please ensure that quoting attributions are correct. The leading '> > >' aren't arbitrary, but indicate who said what. In a licensing discussion this can be particularly significant. Following is my best effort at repair, no assurance of accuracy is given. > RJB > > --- Scott Shattuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > From: Mahesh T Pai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: Randall Burns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Re: RPL version 1.1 > > > Date: 16 Oct 2002 19:04:38 +0530 > > > > > > > > > Randall Burns wrote: > > > > > > > 5.0 ...... Nothing in this License shall be interpreted to > > > > prohibit Licensor from licensing under different terms from this > > > > License any code that Licensor otherwise would have a right to > > > > license. > > > > Well, under other provisionsof this license, you get the copyright > > > to contributions to the source code. Then you will distribute > > > other's contributions under your own different license. > > > > > > Well, .... > > > > We do not get copyright ownership of contributors code. They retain > > the copyright to their work at all times, however they have to agree > > as with other open source licenses, to allow their software to be > > licensed under the terms of the RPL. There is nothing in this license > > that would cause another author's code to become copyright TPI. > > > > This clause is included to ensure that the Licensor can pursue a > > dual-licensing strategy, nothing more. If there is terminology that > > would support that goal better then we're open to it. > > > > > > > > > As a condition to exercising the rights and licenses granted > > > > hereunder, You hereby assume sole responsibility to secure any > > > > other intellectual property rights needed, if any. .... it is > > > > Your responsibility to acquire that license before distributing > > > > the Licensed Software. > > > > > > If licenses from others is required, and if they insist on > > > royalties, how can you call the s/w 'open'? > > > > > > > APSL 1.2 Section 2.3 > > > > > See OSD # 7:- > > > 7. Distribution of License > > > > > > The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom > > > the program is redistributed without the need for execution of > > > an additional license by those parties. > > > > > > > (6,4) b. Source Code Availability. You must notify Licensor > > > > within one (1) month of the date You initially Deploy of the > > > > availability of Source Code to Your Extensions ,,,,, > > > > > > Once again, OSD # 7. > > > > As I read it, no additional license execution is required by this > > clause, whose requirement is simply one of providing community > > notification, preferable through the focal point of the original > > Licensor, but alternatively through a public news group or other forum > > a Google search would turn up. The Licensor and Contributors must be > > able to feel confident however that all Extensions covered under this > > license are published for the good of the community and that people > > are not able to keep their extensions private simply by failing to > > announce them. > > > > > > > > These conditions amount to a restriction on further re-distribution. > > > > I don't see any restrictions on re-distribution here. The clause > > covering the potential for third-party licenses to be required is in > > several OSI approved licenses while the notification clause applies > > only to the first deployment of Extensions (unless the means for > > aquiring updates over time should change). Neither appears to create a > > restriction on re-distribution. > > > > > > 6.6 Conflicts With Other Licenses. .... this License. Such > > > > permission will be granted at the sole discretion of the > > > > Licensor. > > > > > > Would not such permission contaminate s/w under this license? > > > > > > > The GPL has a clause almost identical in intent to this one, which is > > to provide a clearly defined mechanism for determining how to mix a > > viral license with other potentially viral licenses etc. > > > > From the GPL, version 2: > > > > 10. If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free > > programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the > > author to ask for permission. For software which is copyrighted by the > > Free Software Foundation, write to the Free Software Foundation; we > > sometimes make exceptions for this. Our decision will be guided by the > > two goals of preserving the free status of all derivatives of our free > > software and of promoting the sharing and reuse of software generally. > > > > > > > > 7.1 If You create or use a modified version of this License,.. > > > > > > Does this provision serve any purpose other than adding to the > > > license size? > > > > > > > Yes. Since the license is Copyright Technical Pursuit Inc. nothing > > other than this clause would allow a party to create a legal > > derivative license. While the OSI wants to encourage use of existing > > licenses, that's a decision the OSI makes on a license-by-license > > basis. Our goal however is to support other vendors who wish to create > > licenses for their own software, open or otherwise. Such vendors are > > free to use the RPL as a template thanks to this clause. > > > > > > > > > The application of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for > > > > the International Sale of Goods is expressly excluded. > > > > > > I am not aware of the US / Colorado law. But, if the US is a party > > > to the convention, my understanding of the law of international > > > obligations is that the courts in the US are bound to enforce the > > > Convention. > > > > This one's open for discussion. I'm not a lawyer and am willing to > > hear from qualified legal counsel on this question. > > > > > > > > === message truncated === > > > __________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More > http://faith.yahoo.com > -- > license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 > > -- Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? �bersoft: Standing on the necks of giants. http://www.ubersoft.net/
msg05397/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
