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

[Simon Phipps]

On 23 Oct 2017 20:54, "Carlo Piana" <osi-review at piana.eu> wrote:

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.


This is a show-stopper to me. A license that attempts to control/restrict
mere use seems to deny freedom zero, which is a precondition of the whole
OSD.

S.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20171023/bc4451dd/attachment.html>