Re: Total Reciprocity Public License (TRPL v1.0)

--===============4150665760661482734==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002bb39b06457c867f"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

--0000000000002bb39b06457c867f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Modified original Licence text into this draft from Feedbacks:

https://github.com/trplfoundation/trpl-license/blob/main/Draft

On Wed, Dec 3, 2025, 9:52=E2=80=AFPM Gil Yehuda <[email protected]> wrote:

> Jay,
> If you intend to ask for critique, there=E2=80=99s quite a bit =E2=80=94 =
from nitpicking
> details to fundamental flaws. I=E2=80=99ll list some of the apparent ones=
 below as
> I read the license text.
> If you intend to suggest this as a new open source license that would mee=
t
> the OSD, I don=E2=80=99t think this will do.
>
> As I read the license:
>
>    - Preamble: Licenses are documents that grant rights under conditions.
>    This text suggests that the license can guarantee freedom, indeed =E2=
=80=9Cradical=E2=80=9D
>    freedom (I=E2=80=99m not sure of the difference) in software architect=
ure (not just
>    code?). Licenses should articulate the rights they grant and the condi=
tions
>    under which those rights are granted. Preambles are great to convey in=
tent
>    which helps when trying to interpret ambiguity; but they also reveal c=
ases
>    where the intent is to express a wish for how things ought to be in th=
e
>    world. That=E2=80=99s better expressed in a manifesto, not a legal doc=
ument.
>    - =E2=80=9CIntimate Communication=E2=80=9D is one of my favorite terms=
 found in
>    software licenses since it makes people think we=E2=80=99re also dabbl=
ing in
>    marriage counseling. My constructive comment here is that when license=
s say
>    =E2=80=9CThis includes, but is not limited to=E2=80=9D that automatica=
lly creates a speed
>    bump where a reader (and their lawyer) have to imagine if this include=
s
>    something surprisingly not intended. It creates a very broad scope =E2=
=80=94 and
>    that=E2=80=99s going to warn me to stay away from using code under thi=
s license
>    because I might intent to comply only to learn that the scope was even
>    broader than assumed.
>    - =E2=80=9CContent Output=E2=80=9D is defined with two terms =E2=80=9C=
human consumption or
>    data storage=E2=80=9D =E2=80=94 I understand the first to exclude non-=
human uses and the
>    second to exclude the use of data that is not stored. I note this beca=
use
>    of the next phrase...
>    - =E2=80=9CDeployment=E2=80=9D is defined with a curious inclusion of =
the term
>    =E2=80=9Cinternally or externally=E2=80=9D which I assume means in the=
 context of a
>    corporation (not of =E2=80=9Chuman consumption=E2=80=9D in the above c=
lause =E2=80=94 right?!) If
>    so, then =E2=80=9Cinternally=E2=80=9D suggests that if I deploy my app=
lication onto my work
>    computer for use by my work colleagues, then the copyright license
>    considers this to be =E2=80=9Cdeployment=E2=80=99 subject to copyright=
 protection. I do not
>    believe that would hold up in the current interpretation of copyright =
laws.
>    - =E2=80=9CConsequently=E2=80=9D (line 40) is where this becomes quite=
 challenging. If
>    I create a system with code licensed under TRPL 1.0 that shares data w=
ith
>    any proprietary software to achieve a unified functional goal =E2=80=
=94 this
>    license declares that the proprietary software becomes part of a "Comb=
ined
>    Work=E2=80=9D that I must release its source code under the terms of t=
his license.
>    But what if that proprietary software is not mine to release? I might =
not
>    even have the source code? Let=E2=80=99s say I license the proprietary=
 edition of
>    Postman and use it to make an API call to software under TRPL 1.0 =E2=
=80=94
>    internally (to my corporation, not in my body). I now have to acquire =
and
>    release Postman=E2=80=99s proprietary source code under the TRPL 1.0 l=
icense? How
>    would I go about doing that? Since there=E2=80=99s no definition of =
=E2=80=9Crelease=E2=80=9D here,
>    can I assume that if I deploy internally, then I can release internall=
y
>    too? You see that would not help promote your intent. This section of =
the
>    license seems to convey how you wish software would work =E2=80=94 but=
 it does not
>    clarify how I, a potential user of software licensed under this licens=
e,
>    needs to do to make the world work that way.
>
>
> I=E2=80=99m concerned there is little practical use of this license since=
 any
> software licensed this way, no matter how appealing that software may be,
> is automatically going to pose a threat to the rest of my software. Given
> that software is subject to copyright, and that as a user of software, I
> seek to honor other people=E2=80=99s copyrights, this license would make =
it nearly
> impossible to do so. I=E2=80=99d always have to limit my use of this soft=
ware to
> ensure I don=E2=80=99t inadvertently infringe other people=E2=80=99s righ=
ts.
>
> Rather than a license, maybe we can collectively imagine what the past
> 40-50 years of technology would have been like had there been no copyrigh=
t
> on source code. I imagine it would be different =E2=80=94 better in some =
ways,
> worse in others. This license appears to invoke that imagination. But sin=
ce
> source code is subject to copyright laws, I think the licenses should do
> their best to work within that context, granting rights that the grantor
> wishes to grant, and imposing conditions that the users of the software
> wish to, and can, comply with. This text falls short on the second part, =
at
> least for me.
>
> Gil
>
>
>
> On Dec 3, 2025, at 12:59=E2=80=AFAM, Jay Patel <[email protected]> w=
rote:
>
> I am reaching out to community to collect feedback on the proposed licens=
e.
>
> Here is text of License:
>
> https://github.com/trplfoundation/trpl-license/blob/main/LICENSE
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jay
>
> _______________________________________________
> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
> necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by t=
he
> Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
>
> License-discuss mailing list
> [email protected]
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.openso=
urce.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
> necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by t=
he
> Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
>
> License-discuss mailing list
> [email protected]
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.openso=
urce.org
>

--0000000000002bb39b06457c867f
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"auto">Modified original Licence text into this draft from Feedb=
acks:<div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto"><a href=3D"https://githu=
b.com/trplfoundation/trpl-license/blob/main/Draft">https://github.com/trplf=
oundation/trpl-license/blob/main/Draft</a></div></div><br><div class=3D"gma=
il_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On We=
d, Dec 3, 2025, 9:52=E2=80=AFPM Gil Yehuda &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:tenorgil@g=
mail.com">[email protected]</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"g=
mail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204=
,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style=3D""><div style=3D"">Jay,=C2=A0<div>=
If you intend to ask for critique, there=E2=80=99s quite a bit =E2=80=94 fr=
om nitpicking details to fundamental flaws. I=E2=80=99ll list some of the a=
pparent ones below as I read the license text.</div><div>If you intend to s=
uggest this as a new open source license that would meet the OSD, I don=E2=
=80=99t think this will do.</div><div><br></div><div>As I read the license:=
</div><div><ul><li>Preamble: Licenses are documents that grant rights under=
 conditions. This text suggests that the license can guarantee freedom, ind=
eed =E2=80=9Cradical=E2=80=9D freedom (I=E2=80=99m not sure of the differen=
ce) in software architecture (not just code?). Licenses should articulate t=
he rights they grant and the conditions under which those rights are grante=
d. Preambles are great to convey intent which helps when trying to interpre=
t ambiguity; but they also reveal cases where the intent is to express a wi=
sh for how things ought to be in the world. That=E2=80=99s better expressed=
 in a manifesto, not a legal document.</li><li>=E2=80=9CIntimate Communicat=
ion=E2=80=9D is one of my favorite terms found in software licenses since i=
t makes people think we=E2=80=99re also dabbling in marriage counseling. My=
 constructive comment here is that when licenses say =E2=80=9CThis includes=
, but is not limited to=E2=80=9D that automatically creates a speed bump wh=
ere a reader (and their lawyer) have to imagine if this includes something =
surprisingly not intended. It creates a very broad scope =E2=80=94 and that=
=E2=80=99s going to warn me to stay away from using code under this license=
 because I might intent to comply only to learn that the scope was even bro=
ader than assumed.</li><li>=E2=80=9CContent Output=E2=80=9D is defined with=
 two terms =E2=80=9Chuman consumption or data storage=E2=80=9D =E2=80=94 I =
understand the first to exclude non-human uses and the second to exclude th=
e use of data that is not stored. I note this because of the next phrase...=
</li><li>=E2=80=9CDeployment=E2=80=9D is defined with a curious inclusion o=
f the term =E2=80=9Cinternally or externally=E2=80=9D which I assume means =
in the context of a corporation (not of =E2=80=9Chuman consumption=E2=80=9D=
 in the above clause =E2=80=94 right?!) If so, then =E2=80=9Cinternally=E2=
=80=9D suggests that if I deploy my application onto my work computer for u=
se by my work colleagues, then the copyright license considers this to be =
=E2=80=9Cdeployment=E2=80=99 subject to copyright protection. I do not beli=
eve that would hold up in the current interpretation of copyright laws.=C2=
=A0</li><li>=E2=80=9CConsequently=E2=80=9D (line 40) is where this becomes =
quite challenging. If I create a system with code licensed under TRPL 1.0 t=
hat shares data with any proprietary software=C2=A0to achieve a unified fun=
ctional goal =E2=80=94 this license declares that the proprietary software =
becomes part of=C2=A0a &quot;Combined Work=E2=80=9D that I must release its=
 source code under the terms of this license. But what if that proprietary =
software is not mine to release? I might not even have the source code? Let=
=E2=80=99s say I license the proprietary edition of Postman and use it to m=
ake an API call to software under TRPL 1.0 =E2=80=94 internally (to my corp=
oration, not in my body). I now have to acquire and release Postman=E2=80=
=99s proprietary source code under the TRPL 1.0 license? How would I go abo=
ut doing that? Since there=E2=80=99s no definition of =E2=80=9Crelease=E2=
=80=9D here, can I assume that if I deploy internally, then I can release i=
nternally too? You see that would not help promote your intent. This sectio=
n of the license seems to convey how you wish software would work =E2=80=94=
 but it does not clarify how I, a potential user of software licensed under=
 this license, needs to do to make the world work that way.=C2=A0</li></ul>=
<div><br></div><div>I=E2=80=99m concerned there is little practical use of =
this license since any software licensed this way, no matter how appealing =
that software may be, is automatically going to pose a threat to the rest o=
f my software. Given that software is subject to copyright, and that as a u=
ser of software, I seek to honor other people=E2=80=99s copyrights, this li=
cense would make it nearly impossible to do so. I=E2=80=99d always have to =
limit my use of this software to ensure I don=E2=80=99t inadvertently infri=
nge other people=E2=80=99s rights.</div></div><div><br></div><div>Rather th=
an a license, maybe we can collectively imagine what the past 40-50 years o=
f technology would have been like had there been no copyright on source cod=
e. I imagine it would be different =E2=80=94 better in some ways, worse in =
others. This license appears to invoke that imagination. But since source c=
ode is subject to copyright laws, I think the licenses should do their best=
 to work within that context, granting rights that the grantor wishes to gr=
ant, and imposing conditions that the users of the software wish to, and ca=
n, comply with. This text falls short on the second part, at least for me.=
=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>Gil</div><div><br></div><div><br id=3D"m_76=
48066646094320510lineBreakAtBeginningOfMessage"><div><br><blockquote type=
=3D"cite"><div>On Dec 3, 2025, at 12:59=E2=80=AFAM, Jay Patel &lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">jay=
[email protected]</a>&gt; wrote:</div><br><div><div dir=3D"auto">I am rea=
ching out to community to collect feedback on the proposed license.<div dir=
=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Here is text of License:</div><div di=
r=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto"><a href=3D"https://github.com/trplfo=
undation/trpl-license/blob/main/LICENSE" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferre=
r">https://github.com/trplfoundation/trpl-license/blob/main/LICENSE</a></di=
v><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Thanks,</div><div dir=3D"au=
to"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Jay</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>The opinions expressed i=
n this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open =
Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open Source Initiative will b=
e sent from an <a href=3D"http://opensource.org" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"n=
oreferrer">opensource.org</a> email address.<br><br>License-discuss mailing=
 list<br><a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"=
_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">[email protected]</a><br><a h=
ref=3D"http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.o=
pensource.org" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">http://lists.opensource=
.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org</a><br></div></b=
lockquote></div><br></div></div></div>_____________________________________=
__________<br>
The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necess=
arily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open =
Source Initiative will be sent from an <a href=3D"http://opensource.org" re=
l=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">opensource.org</a> email addr=
ess.<br>
<br>
License-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank" r=
el=3D"noreferrer">[email protected]</a><br>
<a href=3D"http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lis=
ts.opensource.org" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">http://l=
ists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org</=
a><br>
</blockquote></div>

--0000000000002bb39b06457c867f--


--===============4150665760661482734==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: inline

X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18KVGhlIG9waW5p
b25zIGV4cHJlc3NlZCBpbiB0aGlzIGVtYWlsIGFyZSB0aG9zZSBvZiB0aGUgc2VuZGVyIGFuZCBu
b3QgbmVjZXNzYXJpbHkgdGhvc2Ugb2YgdGhlIE9wZW4gU291cmNlIEluaXRpYXRpdmUuIE9mZmlj
aWFsIHN0YXRlbWVudHMgYnkgdGhlIE9wZW4gU291cmNlIEluaXRpYXRpdmUgd2lsbCBiZSBzZW50
IGZyb20gYW4gb3BlbnNvdXJjZS5vcmcgZW1haWwgYWRkcmVzcy4KCkxpY2Vuc2UtZGlzY3VzcyBt
YWlsaW5nIGxpc3QKTGljZW5zZS1kaXNjdXNzQGxpc3RzLm9wZW5zb3VyY2Uub3JnCmh0dHA6Ly9s
aXN0cy5vcGVuc291cmNlLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL2xpY2Vuc2UtZGlzY3Vzc19saXN0
cy5vcGVuc291cmNlLm9yZwo=

--===============4150665760661482734==--