Re: RPSL and DFSG-compliance
(Section 2.1.d)
> (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
Questionable. The consensus for a similar clause in OSL 2.0 was that
that was non-free[1]; this is a little different because it only
applies to Modifications, whereas the OSL 2.0 clause included the
Covered Code as well.
1- http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/dls-007-osl
(Section 2.1.e)
> (e) if You Deploy Covered Code in object code, executable form only, You must
> include a prominent notice, in the code itself as well as in related
> documentation, stating that Source Code of the Covered Code is available under
> the terms of this License with information on how and where to obtain such
> Source Code. You must also include the Object Code Notice set forth in Exhibit A
> in the "about" box or other appropriate place where other copyright notices are
> placed, including any packaging materials.
This last part is questionable. If the outside of a Debian retail box
carries copyright notices for the box design, would the Object Code
Notice have to be there too?
(Section 3.c)
> (c) You agree not use any information derived from Your use and review of the
> Covered Code, including but not limited to any algorithms or inventions that may
> be contained in the Covered Code, for the purpose of asserting any of Your
> patent rights, or assisting a third party to assert any of its patent rights,
> against Licensor or any Contributor.
If you download a copy of the Covered Code to disk or copy it from
disk to RAM, without making any modifications or distributing it, you
are barred from bringing a patent suit against Real.com based on what
you read in it? While I appreciate the intent, it seems bogus.
> 7. Versions of the License. Licensor may publish revised and/or new versions of
> this License from time to time. Each version will be given a distinguishing
> version number. Once Original Code has been published under a particular version
> of this License, You may continue to use it under the terms of that version. You
> may also choose to use such Original Code under the terms of any subsequent
> version of this License published by Licensor. No one other than Licensor has
> the right to modify the terms applicable to Covered Code created under this
> License.
This upgrade clause is a little strange, and may discourage other
developers from using RPSL: Who would have to publish the new version
of the license? If Real.com published a new version of the license,
could end users "upgrade" third party RPSL-licensed code to that
without permission from the third party author?
(Section 11.1.c)
> (c) automatically without notice from Licensor if You, at any time during the
> term of this License, commence an action for patent infringement against
> Licensor (including by cross-claim or counter claim in a lawsuit);
This is enormously broad; more restricted clauses in OSL 2.0 (see
above) and the IBM Public License were considered non-free because the
patent in question need not be related to the Covered Code. Any
patent suit at all against Real.com would terminate the license.
> 11.2 Effect of Termination. Upon termination, You agree to immediately stop any
> further use [etc.]
US copyright law does not limit use of a legitimate copy; without some
sort of affirmative assent from the user, that part of this clause may
not be binding. I think that's not a DFSG issue, but one for the
licensor to worry about.
> 12.6 Dispute Resolution. Any litigation or other dispute resolution between You
> and Licensor relating to this License shall take place in the Seattle,
> Washington, and You and Licensor hereby consent to the personal jurisdiction of,
> and venue in, the state and federal courts within that District with respect to
> this License. The application of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for
> the International Sale of Goods is expressly excluded.
Choice of venue clause plus express submission of jurisdiction: the
DFSG freeness of this is being debated separately. I do not believe
there is yet consensus on that subject.
Michael Poole
Reply to: