Subject: Re: Updated license - please comment
From: "Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." <>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 20:20:33 -0400

: Am I the only one who thinks 2a and 2d are unacceptible?  It violates
: OSD#3 by limiting the type of derived work,

I think you have to evaluate the license in the context of what the author
has told us about his purpose. The GNU LGPL, for example, makes more sense
when you consider its purpose. We are told that RSPL is intended to be used
for libraries, which is similar to one the principle purposes of the GNU
LGPL. The GNU LGPL is an OSD compliant and OSI-approved open source license.

Section 2a, of the RSPL, which states that "The modified work must itself be
a software library" is identical to the GNU LGPL. Hence, no problem there.
The revised Section 2d of the RSPL appears to be the old section 2e, and
replaces the troubling joint ownership provision. As it is written, section
2d now follows the language in what might be an identical provision in the
GNU LGPL. Consequently, I do not see a problem here.


perhaps OSD#6 by limiting
: itself to creators of software libraries, and perhaps OSD#8 by being
: specific to the product "software library".  As far as I can tell, it
: prevents anyone from distributing an application that statically links the
: library into it (if such an application is a derived work of the library,
: at least).
: It doesn't even seem close to me.  Let me know if I'm insane, or reading
: it wrong, but I can't see how such a restriction can be considered open
: source.
: I know they're straight from the LGPL, but they are irrelevant there
: because the LGPL is a pure superset of the GPL (see LGPL section 3),
: unlike the license under discussion.
: Yes, this indicates that I think the LGPL without section 3 would
: be non-open-source.
: --
: Mark Rafn    <>
: --
: license-discuss archive is at

license-discuss archive is at