I got back with the TPI CEO on the RPL, what follows is his reply to Mahesh T Pai's comments.
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
