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

[Josh berkus]

On 10/23/2017 04:41 PM, Josh berkus wrote:
>>   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?
> 

Also ... is "software patch" a useful description of anything?  What's a
patch?  Personally, these days, I do pull requests and container
layering ... are those patches?

--Josh Berkus