(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
