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

[Kyle Mitchell]

On 2017-10-23 16:10, Josh berkus wrote:
> 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?

A very good point.

I've thought of specializing "software patch" as well as "in
development of".  I might have better leverage on "patch",
though:

  3.  Use with any modification constituting a "derivative
      work" under copyright law must be accompanied by
      release of that modification as Open Source Software
      per the Open Source Definition published by the Open
      Source Initiative.

Could also substitute "change" for "modification".

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