Re: The Helixcommunity RPSL is not DFSG-free
Andrea Glorioso wrote:
"rl" == Rob Lanphier <email@example.com> writes:
rl> We're currently evaluating our license with this thread in
rl> mind, but does anybody have new suggested wording?
I'm not a lawyer so I won't try to write down the "correct" wording
(whatever that means) but isn't it easy enough to clearly state that
if you modify RPSL-covered code and you *don't* distribute it, you are
not obliged to distribute the corresponding source modifications, too?
To be clear, it pretty much already says that. Specifically:
2.1 "(d) You must make Source Code of all Your Externally Deployed
Modifications publicly available under the terms of this License,
including the license grants set forth in Section 3 below, for as long
as you Deploy the Covered Code or twelve (12) months from the date of
initial Deployment, whichever is longer. You should preferably
distribute the Source Code of Your Deployed Modifications electronically
(e.g. download from a web site); and"
"1.7 "Externally Deploy" means to Deploy the Covered Code in any way
that may be accessed or used by anyone other than You, used to provide
any services to anyone other than You, or used in any way to deliver any
content to anyone other than You, whether the Covered Code is
distributed to those parties, made available as an application intended
for use over a computer network, or used to provide services or
otherwise deliver content to anyone other than You."
So, the gulf here is not as wide as some may think. I believe I
understand the beef; proponents of the "Chinese dissident" litmus test
would prefer that source code only be distributed to those that receive
the binaries or, in this case, receive the services rendered. We're
evaluating some language there.
If we were to change that language to pass the "Chinese dissident"
litmus test, would that remove all objections to the RPSL?