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

[Bruce Perens]

On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 9:24 PM, Kyle Mitchell <kyle at kemitchell.com> wrote:

> Only use with modification triggers.
>
Well, I'm going to have to read the text again and convince myself that you
really need to base terms upon use at all if there is also modification.

> I'd be careful to avoid prohibiting attribution and notice retention here.

Those involve development and distribution, and don't really fit in the
passive use case. However, we need to consider that it is no longer the
rule that you can view the source code for Javascript or HTML, DRM for
these things is coming, and that there are optimizing programs (like at
Cloudflare) that might accidentally get rid of some of these notices for
us. I don't have a good solution yet, but it would probably be a technical
one.


> We can package up legal analysis, too.
>

:-) It's going to be a GIGO problem then, isn't it?


> I see an anti-copyleft ratchet here, too.


Not really. Copyleft works strongly in the developer's favor against
various sorts of bad actor. Too many Open Source developers are already
treated as unpaid employees of some deep-pockets company.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20171019/a5f0c6d0/attachment.html>