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

[Josh berkus]

On 10/20/2017 12:33 PM, Kyle Mitchell wrote:
> On 2017-10-20 11:10, Josh berkus wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Understood.  That doesn't make your comments any less valued
> or appreciated!
> 
>> 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?
> 
> Perhaps I've misunderstood what you mean by "enforceable"
> before.  Do you mean that, with the grace period, an L0-R
> licensor might never be in a position to successfully argue
> that a licensee has failed to abide by the new license
> conditions, 3 and 4?

Correct.  The "grace period" is infinitely gameable.