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

[Carlo Piana]

On 23/10/2017 20:39, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * 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.  
That's precisely my point. It is 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.

This is also a good point, although I think that this can be stipulated
in return of having a free as in FreeBeer license.

Cheers

Carlo