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

[Josh berkus]

On 10/23/2017 03:55 PM, Kyle Mitchell wrote:
> Josh,
> 
> I've been busy working out variations, trying to cover all
> the concerns we raised, plus a few from Richard and McCoy,
> without doubling the length of the license or veering into
> heavy-duty contract structure.
> 
> The frontrunner:
> 
>   3.  Use with any software patch must be accompanied by
>       release of that patch as Open Source Software per the
>       Open Source Definition published by the Open Source
>       Initiative.

So ... in our prior discussion, I was taking "use" to mean
copying/redistribution, as the word is used in BSD.  However, I now see
that you really mean "use" as in "user".  This changes my interpretation
of some of the clauses.

My first question, in the above, is "what if the user doesn't have the
ability to relicense the patch?"  The clause above imposes an obligation
that the *user* may be unable to fulfill -- or for that matter even
unaware of -- while the *distributor*, who is the jerk who bundled ZRPL
code with a proprietary patch in the first place, gets off scot-free.
Is that how you intended this paragraph to be interpreted?

> 
>   4.  Use as a component of, or in development of, other
>       software must be accompanied by release of that
>       software as Open Source Software per the Open Source
>       Definition published by the Open Source Initiative.

So here you're thinking this is a license for things like software
development tools and libraries, correct?

> 
>   5.  A failure to meet condition 3 or condition 4 is
>       automatically excused on required release of software,
>       or permanent cessation of use involving the software,
>       within ____ calendar days of first failure to meet the
>       condition involving the same software or a preexisting
>       work upon which it was based.
> 
> Number 3 and 4 now state release requirements affirmatively.
> The "grace period" mechanism for both now lives in a
> separate 5.  Number 5 is structured like a path to
> forgiveness, akin to section 8 of (A)GPL-3.0.

OK, that tightens it up a lot.

However, the inclusion of any kind of grace period at all *materially*
means that the grace period starts from the day a licensor *discovers*
the infringement, not when the infringing use starts, since the licensor
has no way to accurately know that time period.

That's not, as far as I'm concerned, a reason to reject the license, but
might be worth noting in the recommendations around it.