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

[Tzeng, Nigel H.]

Hmmm maybe I misunderstand Clause 2 but I'm uncomfortable with shifting the burden of source code publication to users of software rather than developers.

For example developer uses L0-R code during <Grace Period> to develop and completes an app and then gives it to users, with or without source code. Because the L0-R also "triggers on execution" the (probably non-technical) users of the code must publish the source code (which they may not have) somewhere or be in violation of the license.

Can the agent or upstream L0-R developers sue these users for non-compliance and copyright infringement?

If I buy a TV with non-compliant L0-R code what are my responsibilities and how do I fix it if I never got source?

There will also be confusion as to what, if any, L0-R code has triggered the waiver and "reverts to BSD-2".

>From the developer prospective what happens to older versions of the code? A new release may transfer license agency to new entity but version x-1 may be pointed at some old agent and a URL that no longer exists.

Is that older version now waivered (after the grace period) and free for use as if L0-R is BSD?

How do I as developer of L0-R code retroactively change agency for a version published in some unknown repo somewhere? Or am I stuck and never able to switch agents?

How does a downstream developer know that the agency has changed if the old links don't work? How do they even know how long it's been since alternative licenses haven't been available?

Can that agency disrupt my software support business based on releasing L0-R open source by simply making new licenses unavailable?

Why would I want to trust anyone but myself as that agent?

I'm thinking you haven't minimized legal ponderings...


From: Kyle Mitchell <kyle at kemitchell.com<mailto:kyle at kemitchell.com>>
Date: Friday, Sep 22, 2017, 8:52 PM
To: License submissions for OSI review <license-review at opensource.org<mailto:license-review at opensource.org>>
Subject: Re: [License-review] For Approval: License Zero Reciprocal Public License

A quick bit of procedural history:  My
original message to license-review didn't get
delivered, for whatever reason.  A follow-up did.
This reply reproduces my initial responses to the
new-license questionnaire, along with with the
most recent text of the proposed license.

Submission:

I am submitting the License Zero Reciprocal Public
License (L0-R) for approval as an Open Source
license on behalf of Artless Devices LLC.  Artless
Devices LLC is a California business entity, and I
am its sole member and manager. The company
operates licensezero.com, a software
dual-licensing and relicensing agency.


Rationale:

L0-R aims to implement a clear and
stronger-than-strong variant of copyleft,
minimizing community-side legal pondering and
maximizing dual-licensing opportunity.


Distinguish:

1. L0-R is based on BSD-2-Clause.  L0-R adds
   metadata to the copyright notice, a notice of
   source code availability, obligations to retain
   the new notice, and a new, third, copyleft
   condition.

2. L0-R sits with the stronger copyleft licenses,
   such as GPL and AGPL.  L0-R's trigger for
   copyleft breaks sooner, on "execution" or
   "development" of software with the licensed work,
   rather than distribution or provision over a
   network.  L0-R's copyleft obligations are both
   stronger and weaker.  Subject software must be
   published as source code, but can be licensed
   under any combination of OSI-approved terms.

3. L0-R stands distinct from all Open Source
   licenses of which I'm aware in three lesser
   respects.  First, it directs licensees to an
   agent for sale of alternative licenses.
   Second, it sets up automatic waiver of its
   copyleft condition in the event alternative
   licenses cease to be available.  Third,
   copyleft obligations kick in only after a
   grace period of some calendar days.

3. L0-R grew out of a prior license, the License
   Zero Noncommercial Public License (L0-NC), also
   based on BSD-2-Clause:

   https://licensezero.com/licenses/noncommercial/diff

   L0-NC is clearly _not_ Open Source, though it
   reverts more directly back to an unmodified
   BSD-2-Clause by effect of its automatic waiver.


Legal Review:

I am a licensing lawyer, I took the first drafts,
and I made the first revisions.  I've been
fortunate to receive very generous private
feedback from fellow attorneys, but I will stand
behind this proposal alone.


Proliferation Category:

Other (with a follow-on question)

L0-R is not yet in wide current use, evidencing a well
known chicken-and-egg problem ... and a nice
structural brake on needless proliferation.  I
believe L0-R does enough that's new and useful to
warrant review.  I believe it would proliferate
new ideas.

I would also be interested in the correct process
for, and results of, reviewing L0-R terms assuming
automatic waiver of condition 3, by its own terms.
I suspect those terms would be classed "Redundant",
especially of BSD-2-Clause, despite the added
source-availability notice.


Plain Text:

The plain text of the license follows.  This text
is _not_ final, and I look forward to feedback.
Text set <like this> denotes a placeholder.  I'm
by no means wedded to that convention.


License Zero Reciprocal Public License <Version>

Copyright <Name>
          <Jurisdiction> (ISO 3166-2)

          Ed25519: <Public Key>

Source code is available at:
<Repository>

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
are met:

1.  Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
    and source availability notices, this list of conditions and the
    following disclaimer.

2.  Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
    and source availability notices, this list of conditions and the
    following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials
    provided with the distribution.

3.  Uses in the execution or development of any computer program, the
    entire source code of which is not published and publicly licensed
    under licenses approved by the Open Source Initiative, must be
    limited to a period of <Grace Period> consecutive calendar days. This
    condition is waived if licenses permitting those uses cease to be
    available via the following agent, or a successor named in a
    subsequent release, for <Waiver Period> consecutive calendar days:

        <Agent Information>

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
"AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR
A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT
HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE,
DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY
THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
(INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE
OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.


Sincerest thanks to all for time and input.

Best,

K

--
Kyle Mitchell, attorney // Oakland // (510) 712 - 0933
_______________________________________________
License-review mailing list
License-review at opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20170923/186d3ba3/attachment.html>