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

[Kyle Mitchell]

John,

I hope you'll forgive me.  I couldn't
quite decide what general impression to
take from your message.  "Killer
argument" sounds good, at least to this
lawyer's ear.  "No cigar", not so much.

As for "coercing" contributions, I think
I can speak for L0-R as others have
spoken for prior copyleft licenses,
especially the progressively stronger
ones:

First, "coercion" is inapt.  It's far
too strong, too negative.  Yes, copyleft
licenses rely on the prospect of legal
enforcement---involuntary on the
receiving end---to shore up their
conditions, often with the aim of
inducing compliance.  But there's no
obligation to use copyleft-licensed
software.  Copyleft requirements trouble
us only if and when we decide to use in
ways that trigger relevant conditions.
The rules are laid out from the start.

Second, and conversely, there's no
entitlement to others' software, even
others' Open Source software, on the
terms we might prefer.  We might prefer
the law as a whole leave software
totally unencumbered by IP rights, in
natural state akin to a total permissive
license today, perhaps with an
obligation to provide source to those
affected.  The bad news, of course: that
is not the law.  The good news:
developers can use the double-edged
sword the law provides instead to
license with conditions that promote a
community of software development more
like what they'd expect under policies
they'd prefer.

Prior copyleft licenses, which meet the
Open Source definition, take this
approach.  As does L0-R.  I sometimes
think of these licenses as offering a
deal.  If you're willing to join the
community, and abide by its mores,
you're welcome to its software.
Otherwise not.  L0-R drives a harder
"bargain" in that sense---its mores are
more demanding---but the difference is
one of degree, not of any totally new
kind.

One could read GPL as closing a "greedy
user" loophole in permissive
(disparagingly, "pushover") licenses.
One could read AGPL as closing the ASP
loophole in GPL.  One could read L0-R as
closing "private changes" and "build
tool" loopholes in AGPL.  All of that
from the frame that software licenses
ought to be Open Source, and source code
ought to be published.

Returning to your specific concern,
licensors may choose to offer terms that
allow withholding personal patches for
compatibility with new operating
systems.  All prior OSI-approved
licenses may happen to allow that; I'm
not sure.  But I don't read any part of
the Definition to require it.

And the Definition is the issue here.
L0-R may not seem like a good idea to
you.  I happen to disagree; perhaps
you're right, and I'm wrong.  But I
think L0-R is an Open Source license.

You wrote a little.  I've written too
much.  If you make it this far, and even
if you don't, thank you.  Challenging
feedback is the feedback I'm most
grateful for.

Best,

K

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