# Sybase open watcom and reciprocal public license

**URL:** <https://discuss.opensource.org/t/sybase-open-watcom-and-reciprocal-public-license/787>\
**Category:** General\
**Tags:** standards, clearlydefined\
**Created:** [December 28, 2024, 12:03pm UTC](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/sybase-open-watcom-and-reciprocal-public-license/787 "2024-12-28T12:03:19Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![allenwrench](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecccb3/32.png) [@allenwrench](https://discuss.opensource.org/u/allenwrench)\
**Post date:** [December 28, 2024, 12:03pm UTC](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/sybase-open-watcom-and-reciprocal-public-license/787/1 "2024-12-28T12:03:19Z")

</div>

A place to discuss the basics of Open Source, from the various OSI-Approved licenses to the principles behind the Open Source Definition.

Why is the two licenses such as the rpl and the sybase open watcom license osi certified?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![shujisado](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex011/user_avatar/discuss.opensource.org/shujisado/32/230_2.png) [@shujisado](https://discuss.opensource.org/u/shujisado)\
**Post date:** [December 30, 2024, 1:49pm UTC](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/sybase-open-watcom-and-reciprocal-public-license/787/2 "2024-12-30T13:49:01Z")

</div>

Currently, it seems unlikely that either license would be approved by the OSI if submitted today. In particular, I believe the RPL contains several problematic points.

However, the fact remains that both licenses were indeed approved in the past, and at present, there is no mechanism within the OSI to re-review or revoke a license once it has been approved.