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

[Kyle Mitchell]

Simon,

Thanks again for taking time.  We're going back-and-forth,
but I want to make clear that it's all good feelings over
here on my side, for you and OSI generally.

On 2017-10-25 01:10, Simon Phipps wrote:
> Hi Kyle,
>
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 12:15 AM, Kyle Mitchell <kyle at kemitchell.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > OSI license approval is presented, publicly, as approval of
> > license terms under OSD.
>
>
> ... in the context of OSI's mission. It has never been seperate.
>
>
> > If the license approval process applies
> > uncodified policy objectives in addition to OSD, my
> > recommendation remains to acknowledge that transparently,
>
>
> Sorry, the OSI Mission is not a "policy objective" but rather a
> conditioning context.
>
>
> > at
> > least on the public process webpage, and to solicit help
> > codifying the policy objectives, as needed.
> >
>
> OSI does not have a goal of increasing the gaming surface. Extensive
> crafting of new rules in this area seems improbable to me.

I've mentioned a kind of gaming the rules before, but on the
license submitter side: OSI needs to be very careful that
uncodified objectives guiding its operations, and kept
intentionally and self-consciously vague, do not provide
shelter to concerns running crosswise to its purpose.  That
purpose is defined not just by its mission statement, but by
its tax status.  Those currently wearing fiduciary hats for
OSI to seek the benefit of their own legal counsel whenever
this comes up.  I'll say no more.

As for the mission statement, I can't help pointing out that
it's a loop, insofar as "open source" means what OSI says it
means, and OSI's mission boils down to doing good for "open
source", described vaguely and variously.  That context
doesn't feel like it does much conditioning.  Now more than
ever, when "Open Source" is a juicy enough bone to warrant
contention, I should think more transparency, not less, the
order of the day.

The phrase "software freedom" also makes a cameo, speaking
of which...

> > Back to L0-R, of course I am happy to address policy
> > concerns, in addition to OSD issues.  I think I have, though
> > it takes more work in communication, and can feel a bit
> > rudderless without common, written ground to start from.
> > I've also taken pains to ask others to help me tell when
> > we're talking policy, and when we're talking OSD.  It's come
> > up a lot.
> >
>
> Here's a potential diagnostic question for you. Do you believe LO-R will be
> identified by FSF as a Free Software License? I don't recall you mentioning
> that so far.

I'm not sure.  I do expect it might not, for a mix of
definitional and institutional reasons.

While "What is free software?" itself leaves open the
possibility that conditions on other freedoms, including
freedom 0, may be freedom-protective on the whole, FSF
otherwise carves out a niche for copyleft that fits very
tightly to its own implementations.  We see this applied in
its comments about licenses with conditions affecting
"private changes".

Definition aside, FSF clearly made its own, lasting choice
in how to implement copyleft.  I'm sure that choice was well
reasoned, though I now disagree with it, in part due to
developments quite outside the licensing realm.  But in
FSF's position, I'd be hard pressed to concede that copyleft
should go any further than my own most rigorous
implementation.

By the by, I have no idea if there's any process to request
or discuss FSF assessment.  I take it there is not, apart
from wait-and-see.

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