[License-review] For Approval: Rewrite of License Zero Reciprocal Public License

[Kyle Mitchell]

On 2017-11-07 12:11, Bruce Perens wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Kyle Mitchell <kyle at kemitchell.com> wrote:
> >
> > Following GPL 3.0, section 5, trailing paragraph:
> >
> >   4. If you combine this software with other software to
> >      make a larger program, you must release any source code
> >      for that larger program that has not yet been released.
> >
> > Does that avoid the issue in your readings?
>
> It seems to, and it seems to be better language IMO.

Thank you for having another look.

Very glad to read this response!

> My concern around this whole issue is that derivative works under the law
> might mean textual inclusion, the 1980's way of combining programs involved
> static linking and people seem to think that they can use dynamic linking
> for copyright avoidance (although I have an argument that they can't), and
> that we are now at a point where a single program need not run in a single
> address space, come from a single file, or reside in a single CPU or indeed
> a single computer. It just acts like one program. So, I would rather be in
> a position to analyze as an expert what is one program than to codify what
> is one for today's technology and then have inventions change the
> definition.

It's now a goal of mine to keep the words "derivative work"
out of L0-R.  I was tempted to use it in patent termination,
but I got over it.  Thanks, in part, to McCoy.

"Derivative work" is unclear, and it's probably going to
stay that way.  If the right answer is going to be "it's not
perfectly clear, and technology is changing", I'd rather
developer-readers come to that conclusion themselves.  Why
require them to ask a lawyer, or attempt legal research, to
end up in the same place?

I'd bet "larger program" breaks down, too, in time.
Probably in my lifetime.  But I can't see that far ahead.

-- 
Kyle Mitchell, attorney // Oakland // (510) 712 - 0933