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

[Kyle Mitchell]

On 2017-10-23 17:10, Bruce Perens wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 5:20 PM, Kyle Mitchell <kyle at kemitchell.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >   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.
> >
>
> So, it's not the act of modification that triggers the license terms, but
> it's the act of running the program along with such a modification. Until
> one actually runs the program, the act of producing a modification is
> unrestricted.

It's unclear, insofar as how "use" maps onto the actual
exclusive rights of copyright holders is unclear.

I could rewrite L0-R tomorrow by hacking up a more
"enterprise" style form, say OSL, and defining the copyleft
triggers in terms of the exact 106 rights.  But the result
would be a massive shift in style and length that would,
frankly, chase most potential L0-R licensors that I know
away from the license.  Many turn away from GPL today, by
action of a similar reflex.

> And then it's not *any *modification, but only one that constitutes a
> derivative work, and thus is neither de minimus, fair use, nor any sort of
> modifcation that does not constitute a derivative work because copyright
> law understands textual alteration to be a derivative work and does not
> take notice of the infinite number of ways of combining two programs
> together.

This is the cost of the change, in meaning.

> I am failing to understand how this makes things simpler :-)

I agree, which is why I stuck to the plainer language until
Josh poked me.

My original preference was "use with any modification", a
direct callback to the BSD preamble.  If the license is
going to stay a short, academic-style license, it has to use
the terms already in play, which are evidently sufficient to
cover all needed permission-giving territory, rather than
replace them with something out of OSL, say.

I've been tempted a few times to drop BSD on the floor and
rewrite the whole thing, in my preferred style, from
scratch.  But I fear that merely delays things and distracts
from the core issues, in the new conditions.  We could end
up talking about whether my disclaimer or permission-grant
language is sufficient, since that's the easier thing to do.

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