On Wed, 2003-12-10 at 20:48, Rob Lanphier wrote: > > To me that means that we lose ownership of the code and Real is free to > > close it or patent it at any point they wish. > Which part of the Open Source Definition do you reckon the RPSL is in > violation of? > http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php > Note that the OSI has certified the RPSL. The OSI also certified the APSL 1.2[1] which (although much better than it's predecessors) still FORCED modifications to be published back[2], even if they are completely private to an organization. That is not good. Apple, fortunately, recognized that it was important that all users of APSL covered programs become Free, and made the appropriate changes towards making APSL a Free Software license [3]. [1] http://www.opensource.org/licenses/apsl.php [2] http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/historical-apsl.html [3] http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/apsl.html > Quoting the portion of the RPSL that you quoted out of context is very > misleading. No it's not. There's no written promise to maintain the software as Free Software, so what the license says is that Real can do much of 'whatever they want to'. > "2.3 Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, Licensor > hereby grants You, effective on the date You accept this License (via > downloading or using Covered Code or otherwise indicating your > acceptance of this License), a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, > non-exclusive patent license under Licensor's Applicable Patent Rights > to make, use, sell, offer for sale and import the Covered Code, provided > that in each instance you comply with the terms of this License." > > So, regardless of the fact that RealNetworks, as the Licensor, can > create proprietary applications, you have the right to continue to use > the open source version. Not really. This seems to be incompatible with either the Lesser GPL or the GPL. But IANAL, of course. > There are plenty of examples of where this is happening with GPL > software today. For example, much of the code that Raph Levien wrote > was facilitated by this funding model (http://www.artofcode.com/) > > You'll note that this clause makes relicensing in *any* form far more > practical. For example, it's taken years for the Mozilla project to add > GPL and LGPL as an option, because they didn't have this clause in the > MPL (only in the NPL). Ironically, for the code they licensed under the > NPL (which they got far more grief from the community about), they were > able to relicense immediately. Of course, NPL was _not_ Free Software. > RealNetworks has a long history of being as open as the business climate > will prudently allow, and I don't see any reason why this won't continue. Do you seriously believe Microsoft would _dare_ touch the code if it was GPL'ed ? :) That alone is a great reason to _not_use_ the Lesser GPL on certain formats, and not needing weird crappy licenses like RPSL. Hugs, Rui -- + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments. See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part