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

[Carlo]

On 23/09/2017 02:37, Josh berkus wrote:
> On 09/22/2017 05:09 PM, Kyle Mitchell wrote:
>> 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 is a fascinating clause, and I would like to hear the reasoning
> behind it, both legal and usage.
>
> --Josh Berkus

I had hard time understanding this clause myself, even after reading a
lot of explanation. Take it as a readability test from someone to some
extent literate in FOSS licensing, but not an English native speaker, if
nothing else.

What does "use in the execution or development of any computer program"
mean?

For instance, let us suppose software so licensed is a compiler and is
used to compile some other software. Would this be an infringement
unless this other software is published and licensed under an
OSI-compliant license within grace period?

Limiting the use of the software is flat out against the OSD (eg #6). If
I can use the software only to do certain things, or all things but only
with certain subject matter, this can't be approved. All the discussion
would therefore be moot.

I will not even start with the rest of the statement elsewhere, which
might deserve debunking. I think the characterization by John Cowan is
even too mild if what I read in the text is correct.

That's quite different from imposing copyleft conditions. Accepted
copyleft conditions impact on modifications of the software which are
either distributed or quasi-distributed through network access (AGPL).
This impacts on use of non-distributed software.

All the best,

Carlo

PS: as already said, my objections are against the legal text, not the
person or the intent.