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

[Kyle Mitchell]

Bruce,

Thank you.  Setting these things out isn't easy, and neither
will socializing them be.  But it's a start.

On 2017-10-19 21:10, Bruce Perens wrote:
> With regard to *simple users,* those who make use of the Open Source
> software and do not modify or redistribute it, there should be as close to *no
> legal load* as possible. We need to be cognizant that many of these users
> are individuals and very small businesses that can't reasonably assume any
> legal load at all. We can't protect them from patent issues brought by
> others than the licensor of the software, but to the extent that we can
> protect them, we should. In particular, *simple users should not ever have
> to read the license.*

I believe L0-R, especially as recently clarified, passes
this test.  Terms governing use _without modification_ are
precisely as under BSD-2-Clause.  Only use with modification
triggers.

> Use-coupled license responsibilities. We should not allow them at all. If
> you're an infringer if you don't put the correct web badge on your site,
> it's a bad license for Open Source because it means the user has to track
> what programs they're running and put the proper badges online, and make
> sure in perpetuity that those badges keep being presented. No thanks.

I'm not sure quite what you mean by "use-coupled", but I'd
be careful to avoid prohibiting attribution and notice
retention here.  If you use my MIT library in the HTTP
server for your website, you probably don't need to send
every visitor my copyright notice.  But if you bundle my
library in the blob of JavaScript your HTTP server has
visitors load in their browsers...

> License proliferation: We don't want them to have to do more license
> combinatorial analysis than should be necessary. Thus, we should not in
> general accept new licenses, unless they in some way present a benefit to
> the community in a way that presently-accepted licenses do not.

I'm not in favor of proliferation of old ideas in new
dressing, except perhaps where prior implementations were
technically flawed.  For example, approval of ISC after MIT
doesn't trouble me in the least.

But I have to mention that software, empowered especially by
metadata standards, substantially reduces this burden.
License metadata in JavaScript package metadata facilitates
automatic display of the keyhole logo on npmjs.com, for
example.  We can package up legal analysis, too.

> Additional loads on the developer: We already place a number of loads on
> them when distributing, in general they have to present a copyright
> statement and license, sometimes a notice of source code availability,
> sometimes they have to distribute source code, and they perform some
> management of contributors and their rights. That's already a significant
> load, and additional loads upon the developer might not be a reasonable
> expectation.

I see an anti-copyleft ratchet here, too.  I'd love to see a
Berne Convention amendment with magic language for effective
public domain dedication with warranty disclaimer. But I'd
hate to see Open Source veer preferentially in favor of
permissive licenses, to the exclusion of copyright as a
means to achieve policy ends, too.

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