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

[Bruce Perens]

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 7:48 PM, Kyle Mitchell <kyle at kemitchell.com> wrote:

>
> Can you give an example of a net-freedom-reducing use
> condition targeting license terms or source publication that
> backfired?  Do you believe that _all_ use-based conditions
> are doomed to backfire, that we can't write effective ones?
>

I mentioned the Berkeley SPICE one. But mainly the problem is keeping the
legal load on passive users low.  Use restrictions, of course, effect
users. And I really did consider that when writing the OSD.


> That language reads:
>
>   The license must not restrict anyone from making use of
>   the program in a specific field of endeavor.  For example,
>   it may not restrict the program from being used in a
>   business, or from being used for genetic research.
>

While use restrictions are the main way that proposed licenses fail the
field-of-endeavor language, they are not the only one. Coupling other
license terms to fields of endeavor would also fail. No arguments about why
the OSD should then ban the GPL, please. We've disposed of that one.

So in your opinion distribution with modifications is the furthest copyleft
> can go?


No. Actually I don't know how you got there, since we haven't been
discussing distribution.

Consider a license with these terms:

*If you modify the program, you must publish the modification in the source
code form preferred for modification. As an exception to this rule, you are
not required to distribute source code during private development of your
modification. This is defined as until you distribute the program, use it
for another legal entity, or allow another legal entity to use it.*


See what I did here? I inverted a use restriction into a permission which
lets you out of a license requirement.

The requirement for this to work is that the first statement be legal under
the OSD. So:

*If you modify the program, you must publish the modification in the source
code form preferred for modification.*

That's OSD-compliant and it's the only requirement or restriction. Then:


*As an exception to this rule, you are not required to distribute source
code during private development of your modification. This is defined as
until you distribute the program, use it for another legal entity, or allow
another legal entity to use it.*

This is only a permission. There's language like this in GPL 3 with regard
to the Novell-Microsoft patent license.

*unless you entered into that arrangement, or that patent license was
granted, prior to 28 March 2007.*

OSI approved the license.

    Thanks

    Bruce
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20171023/6480d26f/attachment.html>