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

[Richard Fontana]

Hi Kyle,

The BSD license (family) seem to make a distinction between
"redistribution" and "use", as did some other permissive licenses
originating at roughly the same time. Others, none ever submitted for
OSI approval AFAIK, merely spoke of permitting "use". I'm not sure if
that was true of any proto-versions of the BSD license, but I am
pretty sure that the earliest versions did not have "with or without
modification" spelled out.

One could get into whether that's a good way of drafting a copyright
license, but I don't think it's necessary to get into that. We
certainly all accept that the 3-clause and 2-clause BSD licenses are
OSD-conformant. So too derivatives like the recently-approved BSD+Patent 
(not to be confused with the late Facebook React license). 

Your license keeps the distinction between "redistribution" and
"use". But partly as a consequence of that, I find the language of the
added clauses confusing. They refer to "uses" where the original BSD
language had (and still has, in your license) "use". Is "uses" the
same as "use", or does it just mean "particular forms of the thing
that was previously referred to in the singular as "use""? Or no?

If "uses" is essentially the same as, or just a pluralization of,
"use" as used in the initial grant language, doesn't that suggest that
clauses 3 and 4 somehow don't cover the redistribution case? Maybe
that doesn't matter, but I'm finding it at least distracting. :)

Or why "uses" instead of "use", when everyone is expecting the license
to refer to "use" because that's what its BSD ancestors did?

Leaving that issue aside, I also find it distracting where the license
says "uses with modification". I find it at least somewhat confusing
phrasing.

Don't you mean something like this: If you've exercised the right to
modify which I've semi-implicitly granted you with my BSD-derived
grant language, then in proceeding to "use" that modified version --
which I will assume for the moment is really "distribution and use",
or "use including distribution" -- at all points in time in which the
"use" is taking place, the code has to be "Open Source" in the OSD
sense (including the fact that I must publish source code if otherwise
there'd be no licensing act and source code wouldn't be available to
anyone but me)?

Would it be equivalent to say something like: If you modify this code,
you must publish the modifications under an OSI-approved license
within <Grace Period> days? Not suggesting that's better wording but
I'm trying to rephrase what I think the intended meaning is. My
rephrasing there also may make clearer what some may see as an open
source conformance issue. 

I may have a comment on clause 4, but I will leave it there for the
moment.

Richard
  







On Thu, Oct 19, 2017, at 08:27 PM, Kyle Mitchell wrote:
> Revising the text of the proposed license, per feedback here
> on license-review and elsewhere.
> 
> Also replying to the original message this time.  If I
> revise again, I'll do the same, so it's easier to find.
> 
> First the new text, then a few notes.
> 
> Text:
> 
>     License Zero Reciprocal Public License <Version>
> 
>     Copyright <Year> <Copyright Holder>
> 
>     Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with
>     or without modification, are permitted provided that the
>     following conditions are met:
> 
>     1.  Redistributions of source code must retain the above
>         copyright notice, this list of conditions and the
>         following disclaimer.
> 
>     2.  Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the
>         above copyright notice, this list of conditions and
>         the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or
>         other materials provided with the distribution.
> 
>     3.  Uses with any modification that is not "Open Source"
>         as defined by the Open Source Initiative must be
>         limited to <Grace Period> calendar days.
> 
>     4.  Uses as part of, or in development of, other
>         software that is not "Open Source" as defined by the
>         Open Source Initiative must be limited to <Grace
>         Period> calendar days.
> 
>     THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND
>     CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED
>     WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED
>     WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A
>     PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
>     COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY
>     DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR
>     CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
>     PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF
>     USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER
>     CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN
>     CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING
>     NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE
>     USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY
>     OF SUCH DAMAGE.
> 
> Notes:
> 
> - I've removed all mention of agent for sale of alternative
>   licenses, as well as the automatic waiver of the copyleft
>   conditions.  My motivation was twofold. For one, those
>   features produced considerable comment, concern, and
>   confusion, aside from the main issue of use conditions
>   triggering copyleft.  For two, the aim of each can be
>   achieved otherwise, outside the license text. As a result,
>   the proposal is now _exactly_ BSD-2-Clause, plus new
>   conditions 3 and 4.
> 
> - The copyleft triggers now speak directly in terms of OSD
>   conformance, to catch both source availability and license
>   terms requirements.  (The assumption is that L0-R, in some
>   form, will eventually be recognized itself, so L0-R code
>   can clearly incorporate L0-R code.)  But that aside, I
>   think the new language goes more directly to intent, and
>   reads more clearly.
> 
> - I've split the new conditions across two numbered items.
>   This should help clarify that unmodified use alone does
>   not trigger share-alike.
> 
> - I was tempted to define terms for repeated words and
>   phrases, but held the urge back.  BSD-2-Clause doesn't do
>   so, and for this kind of license, stylistically, I think
>   that's probably best.
> 
> -- 
> Kyle Mitchell, attorney // Oakland // (510) 712 - 0933
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review