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

[Simon Phipps]

On 23 Oct 2017 23:47, "Kyle Mitchell" <kyle at kemitchell.com> wrote:

On 2017-10-23 14:10, Josh berkus wrote:
> On 10/23/2017 02:39 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 23 Oct 2017 20:54, "Carlo Piana" <osi-review at piana.eu
> > <mailto: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.
>
> Per Kyle's responses, this isn't intentional, but does point to the need
> for a wording change.

Unmodified use unrelated to software doesn't fall under any
numbered condition.  As such, it's covered by the full
BSD-2-Clause general permission grant.

I'm not sure if Carlo objects to conditions on unmodified
use, or conditions on use generally, even with
modifications.


I cannot envisage any circumstances where limiting mere use (i.e. without
distribution or other making available) would be acceptable in an open
source/free software license, whether the code was unchanged or had been
improved.

S.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20171023/a08945f4/attachment.html>