7

So I found an open source project that uses the reciprocal public license 1.5 (RPL). It seems that the RPL means that you must post all of your code back out to the community.

RPL 1.5 - Paragraph 5
Further, under the RPL all components you author including schemas, scripts, source code, etc. -- regardless of whether they're compiled into a single binary or used as two halves of client/server application -- must be shared. You have to share the whole pie, not an isolated slice of it.

I work for a health care company that is not going to be ok with me posting our proprietary code out on the internet.

So I am wondering, is that really what the RPL does? Is there limitations on what needs to be published? Or is it really just any thing that touches the RPLed project must also go open source under the RPL?

Vaccano
  • 78,325
  • 149
  • 468
  • 850
  • 4
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is about licensing or legal issues, not programming or software development. [See here](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/274963/questions-about-licensing/274964#274964) and [here](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/139804/can-licensing-questions-ever-be-on-topic) for details, and the [help] for more. – JasonMArcher Jun 16 '15 at 16:51
  • Health care companies routinely pay for commercial software so the obvious solution is merely to pay money to remove the RPL restrictions on keeping code private to the health care company. – user3673 Oct 25 '21 at 17:47

2 Answers2

10

For a commercial software RPL is even worse than GPL.

It is true that you have to publish your source code on any derivative work.

Also in GNU web site it says:

The Reciprocal Public License is a non-free license because of three problems. 1. It puts limits on prices charged for an initial copy. 2. It requires notification of the original developer for publication of a modified version. 3. It requires publication of any modified version that an organization uses, even privately.

source

Edit

Quatation from RPL 1.5:

6.0 Your Obligations And Grants. In consideration of, and as an express condition to, the licenses granted to You under this License You hereby agree that any Modifications, Derivative Works, or Required Components (collectively Extensions) that You create or to which You contribute are governed by the terms of this License including, without limitation, Section 4. Any Extensions that You create or to which You contribute must be Deployed under the terms of this License or a future version of this License released under Section 7. You hereby grant to Licensor and all third parties a world-wide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license under those intellectual property rights You own or control to use, reproduce, display, perform, modify, create derivatives, sublicense, and distribute Licensed Software, in any form. Any Extensions You make and Deploy must have a distinct title so as to readily tell any subsequent user or Contributor that the Extensions are by You. You must include a copy of this License or directions on how to obtain a copy with every copy of the Extensions You distribute. You agree not to offer or impose any terms on any Source Code or executable version of the Licensed Software, or its Extensions that alter or restrict the applicable version of this License or the recipients' rights hereunder.

JCasso
  • 5,423
  • 2
  • 28
  • 42
  • 3
    so what is a "derivative work"? Does that mean if I change their stuff? Or does that mean if I use their stuff? – Vaccano Apr 14 '11 at 14:07
  • 1
    Your quotation perfectly explains it. They do not care static or dynamic linking as GPL. You do not mean installing it on your computer and run it by saying "use their stuff" right? It is a library or a framework and you will link it from your application? – JCasso Apr 14 '11 at 19:52
  • 1
    The definition of "Derivative" (for the RPL 1.5) is defined in US Copyright Law. A summary of that can be found on Wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work (It is not an easy read). – Vaccano Apr 14 '11 at 21:56
  • 1
    Unfortunately there is no solid explanation of the term "Derivative work". Even open source community have conflicts about it. But i can simply tell you if it is a library or framework, you cannot use it. If you do so, you have to license your software under **RPL** and thus you have to publish your source code. RPL is definitely not suitable for commercial use cases. I guess the vendor uses dual license model and actually wants you to buy a commercial license from them. – JCasso Apr 15 '11 at 00:04
  • Thank you for the added info. The vendor does indeed want push towards buying a "commercial license". (The vendor is NServiceBus.) See this question for more information: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5657809/nservicebus-license and more specifically this answer: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5657809/nservicebus-license/5670707#5670707 – Vaccano Apr 15 '11 at 00:32
3

Reciprocal Public License is more stricter than of GPLv2. It requires the distribution of all the source code (Whether the proprietary or Open Source), which linked, based out of RPL. Be careful in terms of protecting own IP.

CloudyMarble
  • 36,908
  • 70
  • 97
  • 130
Aahit
  • 31
  • 1