Hi all,
really sorry about answering to that many list, but i d like to clear things..
I invite people to check the license for themselves and see if it is in fact open source.
The licence reads:
"Contributor hereby assigns to RealNetworks full ownership in all worldwide common law and statutory rights associated with the intellectual property rights, copyrights, copyright application, copyright registration and moral rights in the Contribution to the extent allowable under applicable local laws and copyright conventions. Contributor agrees that this assignment may be submitted by RealNetworks to register a copyright in the Contribution. Contributor retains the right to use the Contribution for Contributor's own purposes subject to whatever license is applicable to the Contribution, if any (e.g. RPSL). This provision will enable RealNetworks to efficiently protect the copyright in the Helix DNA on behalf of the entire community."
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.
Quoting the portion of the RPSL that you quoted out of context is very misleading. For starters, I encourage everyone to look at the whole license:
https://www.helixcommunity.org/content/rpsl
"2. Permitted Uses; Conditions & Restrictions. 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, non-exclusive copyright license, to the extent of Licensor's copyrights cover the Original Code"
...and:
"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.
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.
http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/relicensing-faq.html#why-use-special-rights
The GStreamer team is pushing hard to get an integrated and distributable media framework and we are currently trying to fund the development of Theora codec so that we can get a completely free and open solution for multimedia streaming/playback.
Actually, RealNetworks has funded the Xiph Foundation in the past: http://www.realnetworks.com/company/press/releases/2002/xiph.html
...and you should keep your eye out for more announcements on this front.
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.
Rob
_______________________________________________ gnome-list mailing list gnome-list@xxxxxxxxx http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-list
