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

[Josh berkus]

On 10/19/2017 08:21 PM, Kyle Mitchell wrote:
> The alternative to all of this is to drop the grace period
> entirely.  It would be possible to comply with that license,
> assuming you work "in the open" and apply the same public
> license to your code.  But we all know not everyone, in
> every context, can do that.  We could build in retroactive
> forgiveness for those that eventually publish Open Source,
> but that vitiates the incentive to comply in the first
> place.

So, please do understand that these comments are mine personally --
you've already seen commends by Perens and Fontana, and will no doubt
see others.

I'd be inclined to drop the grace period, because I can't see any way in
which it's enforceable.  And what would be the point of certifying, or
adopting, a license which can't be enforced?

However, without the grace period, what you have is materially a more
compact form of the LGPL license.  And is the value of reducing a 3-page
license to 1 page enough to make it worth adding another license to the
OSS ecosystem?  Or is there a practical difference between this and the
LGPL that I'm missing?

--Josh