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

[John Cowan]

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 2:15 PM, Richard Fontana <fontana at sharpeleven.org>
wrote:

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.


Indeed.  I have always assumed that since "redistribution" is a copyright
matter,
"use" is the patent term of art, and therefore the BSD license is both a
copyright
and a patent license. The MIT license contains the verbs "use",
"sublicense", and
"sell copies", which I believe are patent terms also (although MIT has
denied
this interpretation of the word "use").

-- 
John Cowan          http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan        cowan at ccil.org
We are lost, lost.  No name, no business, no Precious, nothing.  Only empty.
Only hungry: yes, we are hungry.  A few little fishes, nassty bony little
fishes, for a poor creature, and they say death.  So wise they are; so just,
so very just.  --Gollum

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
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20171020/e5425622/attachment.html>