I haven't seen much response here. I think that Scott handled the issues that Mahesh T Pai brought up.
If noone has any additional complaints here, what is the next step in the approval process for the RPL? We'd really like to move forward here. RJB --- "Karsten M. Self" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > === message truncated === > ATTACHMENT part 2 application/pgp-signature __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
