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

[Richard Fontana]

Kyle,

Thanks for submitting this revision. In this response I've reordered
some of the quoted text of your message.

> I believe L0-R does enough that's new and useful to warrant
> review.  I believe it would proliferate new ideas.

I agree. No question.

This license submission raises a number of difficult policy questions,
which are clarified by this latest version. In this message I will set
out what I think the four difficult policy questions are, without
attempting to comment further on them here.

Policy question 1 (raised by clause 3: "If you modify or extend this
software, you must release source code for your modification or
extension."):

  Can an open source license (or, for those who prefer, 'Should the
  OSI approve a license that') require(s) source code distribution
  upon private/internal modification or extension, even in
  circumstances that go beyond the network services provision scenario
  contemplated in AGPLv3 section 13 paragraph 1?

Policy question 2 (raised by clause 4: "If you include this software
in a larger piece of software, you must release any source code for
that larger piece of software that has not yet been released."):

  Can an open source license (or 'Should the OSI approve a license
  that') require(s) source code distribution merely because the user
  has, without necessarily engaging in distribution or AGPLv3-style
  network services provision, incorporated the licensed software into
  other software? (Maybe we ought to assume that if this were a
  distribution-triggerd clause it would be Open Source, though that
  may not be clear.)

Policy question 3 (raised by clause 5: "If you run this software to
analyze, modify, or generate software, you must release source code
for that software."):

  Can an open source license (or 'Should the OSI approve a license
  that') require(s) source code distribution of software other than
  the licensed software, or software that incorporates or is a
  modification or extension of the licensed software? (Perhaps one can
  put the question this way: At what point are the 'contacts' between
  the licensed software and the other software too remote for a source
  distribution requirement, particularly one that is triggered merely
  by running the licensed software, to be a legitimate feature of an
  Open Source license?)

Policy question 4 (raised by your candid admission of how you yourself
intend to use this license):

  Should the OSI approve a license if the license submitter's primary
  contemplated use is as a means of facilitating a dual-license or
  'proprietary relicensing' business strategy?

> It's a goal of the project to conform to
> the Open Source Definition.

Apologies if you've previously commented on this, but I'm interested
in knowing whether you also plan to seek recognition by the FSF of
this license as conformant to the Free Software Definition. I believe
the present-day OSI board might be reluctant to approve LO-R if it
were very likely or certain that the FSF would designate LO-R as
'non-free'.

> I would also be interested in the correct process for, and
> results of, reviewing L0-R assuming waiver of its copyleft
> conditions---from number 3 to the end.  I suspect the
> remainder would be classed "Redundant", especially of
> BSD+Patent.

If I understand you correctly, I'd suggest submitting that as a
separate license (if you want to pursue that).

Richard