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

[Kyle Mitchell]

Josh,

Thanks for your time, and your interest.

I've just responded to the thread with a copy of
my responses to the standard new-license
questionnaire.  I hope some of your answers are
there, at least on a general level.

But since condition 3 is exactly where I suspect
all the action will be, a few notes more, deeper
in the weeds of implementation:

Condition 3 aims to implement a kind of copyleft
condition.  It shares the approach of prior
implementations in focusing on source code
availability and licensing terms.  It's highly
self-contained, sounding in the point Larry Rosen
made with OSL-versus-AFL.

Compared to the GPL and even AGPL, the "trigger"
for copyleft fires more easily.  Rather than focus
on distribution and modification, the language
hooks into use: "execution" and "development" of
software.  This encompasses provision over a
network---via "execution"---as under AGPL.  It
goes further, extending the share-alike aspects of
the condition to changes made for internal use,
for example.

Once you've triggered the condition, the
requirements are both more and less exacting than
what we see in current mainstream copyleft
licenses.

On the access-to-source front, L0-R requires
_publication_ of source, not just provision to
users.  That burden's substantially mitigated by
the availability of free source distribution
online.  Many GPL licensees satisfy source
provision by "access ... from a network server at
no charge" today, anyway.  Cheaper than media!

On the license-alike front, L0-R requires less
than current copyleft licenses, which prescribe
the same terms, perhaps with a relicensing or
express cross-compatibility "out" for specific,
sister licenses, like (A)GPL-3.0 section 13.  L0-R
permits any combination of OSI-approved terms for
implicated programs.

If there's any place where I would most appreciate
feedback, it's on how this approach plays out
where we see license compatibility issues now.  My
hope is that it substantially reduces developer
compat head scratching, perhaps at the price of an
opportunity for skulduggery in licensees' choice
of an obscure or otherwise unfortunate
OSI-approved license to achieve compliance.  I
have my own little "test suite" of hypotheticals
to run through on it, but it's hard to get these
rights, and I can't pretend my suite's complete.

All of this is mitigated by a "grace period" of a
set number of calendar days.  Licensees can make
otherwise noncompliant uses of the L0-R software
for that period.

The last sentence implements an automatic waiver
of the copyleft condition in the event the
licensor stops offering alternative licenses that
_do_ permit uses executing and developing non-OSI,
source-not-available software.  In other words, if
the licensor stops dual licensing the code for a
set period, condition 3 writes itself out of the
license, substantially undoing the "patch" to
BSD-2-Clause.  The only remaining difference is an
obligation to reproduce the notice of where source
code is available.

Best,

K

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