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

[Kyle Mitchell]

On 2017-10-23 21:10, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Kyle Mitchell:
> 
> >> 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.
> >
> > OSD criterion 6 has come up a few times.  Recapping my part
> > in those discussions:
> >
> > If development of proprietary software is a "field of
> > endeavor" against which Open Source licenses cannot
> > discriminate, then distribution-triggered copyleft
> > conditions like GPL's would fail the criterion, too.  That's
> > clearly not the case.  So "field of endeavor" must mean
> > something else.
> 
> For this reason, I assumed that “field of endeavor” always referred to
> activities which do not involve the creation of derivative works.  So
> “you may incorporate this program into open-source software only” is
> acceptable, but “you may use this program to write open-source
> software only” is not, because it disallows writing poetry with the
> program.

L0-R stars off by giving the same, broad grant of permission
as BSD-2-Clause, in exactly the same words.  Even with the
additional L0-R conditions, the license doesn't say that you
may _only_ use the L0-R with other Open Source.  Rather, you
may use the software however you like, but it's a condition
of using it with a patch or some other software that either
the patch or software becomes Open Source within a given
time, or you stop using it that way within a given time.

-- 
Kyle Mitchell, attorney // Oakland // (510) 712 - 0933