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

[Bruce Perens]

I don't stand behind the annotations. One or two sort of miss the purpose
and they could be improved.

    Thanks

    Bruce

On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 1:16 PM, John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com> wrote:
>
> Analysis, modification, and generation of software are a field of endeavor
>> under OSD # 6.
>>
>
> Okay, so any task counts as a "field of endeavor".  This should be
> explained somewhere, as the examples in the OSDA suggest lines of business.
>
>
>> OSD #2 says the *program *must include source code, so it overrides any
>> provision in OSD # 6 that would prevent the program from having source code.
>>
>
> So "distributing binary without source" is a field of endeavor too, but
> discrimination based on it (that is, forbidding it) is okay because #2.
> This also should be explained.
>
>  But not *other *programs. So, GPL OK, King Midas not OK.
>>
>
> No argument from me.  I just want the ­ı's dotted and the ŧ's crossed.
>
> --
> John Cowan          http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan        cowan at ccil.org
> They do not preach that their God will rouse them
> A little before the nuts work loose.
> They do not teach that His Pity allows them
> to drop their job when they damn-well choose.
>                 --Rudyard Kipling, "The Sons of Martha"
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20171108/71f7e2a7/attachment.html>