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

[Kyle Mitchell]

On 2017-10-24 20:10, Bruce Perens wrote:
> I don't believe that the use of the OSD by reference works as you intend.
> The OSD is not a software license, it's a specification of how licenses
> should behave. Thus, it doesn't really require that source code must be
> distributed at all, when you use it by reference, it simply requires that
> your license allow source code redistribution (which it doesn't, because
> there is no language to that effect).
>
> If asked to testify, I would probably not be able to say this use of the
> document made sense.

I'm a bit puzzled.

The preamble reads:

  Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code.
  The distribution terms of open-source software must comply
  with the following criteria...

I read that to mean that "Open Source", as defined by OSD,
is software that must be under terms that meet its criteria.
So OSD isn't a license in itself, of course.   But it
defines "open source software", not "open source license".

Similar story for for distribution.  To release open source,
as defined:

  The program must include source code...

Moreover:

  Where some form of a product is not distributed with
  source code, there must be a well-publicized means of
  obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable
  reproduction cost, preferably downloading via the Internet
  without charge.  The source code must be the preferred
  form in which a programmer would modify the program.
  Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed.
  Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or
  translator are not allowed.

Licenses can't distribute source, so OSD is speaking to
something other than the license here.

What OSD says about source distribution doesn't say anything
so general as "publication", as L0-R originally required,
nor anything so specific as provision to those receiving
binaries, or interacting over a network, as under AGPL.

"Publication" and license meeting OSD seemed to do the
trick, but others worried about edge cases.  So I fell back
on OSD.  If OSD isn't good enough, either, then sure, I'll
tackle it myself.

> And OSI has not agreed to keep the OSD in its present form so that it can
> serve as the text of your license.

I can lock the reference to the OSD "as originally
published" by OSI.

> Can you try being a bit less clever, and just write a stand-alone license
> that doesn't reference the BSD license, doesn't reference the OSD, and says
> what the licensee should do?

I mentioned doing so earlier today.  I am at work on it now.

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