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

[Christopher Sean Morrison]

>> And I just want to make sure that the users of this license don't run into
>> trouble in court. One way to reduce ambiguity is not to include a
>> not-for-purpose document by reference that will lead some judge into a
>> rabbit hole when you could just copy a few sentences of language.
> 
> Incorporation by reference is not unknown to the courts.
> Privately negotiated deals involve big stacks of documents
> incorporated by reference, all the time.  Those documents
> haven't the benefit of a single source of publication,
> verifiable on the Internet.

Just because you can doesn’t mean you should.  I read the suggestion as offering an alternative, not suggesting incorporation by reference is unknown or new territory.  The indirection adds unnecessary complexity that (imho) devalues the quality of the license (especially from a non-legal perspective, however minor).  Most open sources licenses stand on their four corners (dammit lgpl).

> Possible change to OSD?  We can solve that by date-locking
> the reference.  That's very typical in contract drafting,
> say for referencing a statute in force at the time a
> contract is made.  No sweat.

Just because you can doesn’t mean you should.  Not a problem if the license embedded/stated the conditions it cares about from the OSD in language appropriate to how it’s framed.

Perhaps I’m mistaken, but I’ve also never considered the actual language of the OSD as being suitable for legal purposes.  It’s a general framing that guides the community in general layman terms.  Incorporating it by reference is a can of unhelpful worms imho.

>> If you reference the OSD to define what is a compatible license for
>> modifications, you should also have a backup. As in "An OSI-certified Open
>> Source license or a license no more restrictive than this one." And you
>> will need separate language requiring source-code availability for the
>> entire program.
> 
> Alas, from my lawyer's chair, "no more restrictive" doesn't
> offer much clarity.  Restrictions---conditions or exceptions
> to conditions---vary as often in kind as in extent.
> 
> I don't mean to be a spoilsport.  I'm sure I've seen that
> language elsewhere.  But repeated usage doesn't make it any
> more clear, I'm afraid.

Responses like this make the discussion feel long in the tooth.  The point was defining a backup, not coming up with the precise wording for you with clarity.  The GPL and LGPL have been de facto effective in this regard (section 7&10).  Of course if you just embedded/stated what you care about from the OSD in language appropriate to how it’s framed … there wouldn’t be this to discuss.

Cheers,
Sean