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

[Kyle Mitchell]

On 2017-10-24 15:10, Josh berkus wrote:
> On 10/24/2017 03:34 PM, Kyle Mitchell wrote:
> > L0-R was written for use as one of two alternative public
> > licenses for users of licensezero.com, an online system for
> > selling exceptions to public licenses.  If you'd like, I can
> > poll those who expressed original interest in a copyleft
> > usable with License Zero, and see what work they had in
> > mind.  Knowing who I know, I'd suspect primarily npm
> > packages to start.  As for me, I would very likely apply
> > L0-R to the server software for License Zero itself, and to
> > separate license audit tools, going forward.
>
> Ah -- NPM.  Much is explained now.
>
> I'd love to chat with you about the potential harm to the NPM ecosystem
> from aggressive copyleft licensing, but that is not a discussion for
> this list.

Feel free to e-mail me separately.  If you'd prefer, we can
set up a call.

> Unfortunately, this also raises the question of whether or not there is
> part of the OSI mission or rules which would deter approving a license
> which was specifically submitted as a way to fuel a dual-licensing
> business model.  I don't personally know of one, but I also don't know
> of a precedent for approving one.

This came up earlier, I think with John Cowan.  I didn't
remember this bit of Artistic 2.0 at the time:

  You are always permitted to make arrangements wholly
  outside of this license directly with the Copyright Holder
  of a given Package.  If the terms of this license do not
  permit the full use that you propose to make of the
  Package, you should contact the Copyright Holder and seek
  a different licensing arrangement.

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