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

[Florian Weimer]

* Kyle Mitchell:

>     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.

What is this supposed to mean?

Usually, mere “use” of a software (in the sense of running the code)
cannot be open source or not.  That distinction only arises if
redistribution happens.

Clause 4 seems to restrict the use (running) of the software to
open-source development.  This is pretty close to a restriction on
fields of endeavor.  Even the most restrictive open source licenses
(like a common interpretation of the Sleeypcat license, or the QPL)
permit arbitrary use for your own internal purpose.  From a practical
point of view, this is very important because it allows you to avoid
complex license management for purely internal applications.

There is also the practical concern: In some jurisdictions, once you
have legally obtained a copy, you can run the program without
restriction, without consent from the copyright holder, even if doing
so technically creates additional (temporary) copies.