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

[Nigel T]

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 5:30 AM, Kyle Mitchell <kyle at kemitchell.com> wrote:

> On 2017-09-25 23:09, Nigel T wrote:
>

> Triggering on use opens a host of issues for users.  This doesn't happen
> in AGPL so no, you can't pull the same stunt.
>
> I mentioned AGPL because it smudges the line between "use" and
> "distribution".  Which is providing software for remote interaction over a
> network?
>

The hosting entity is the distributor right?  There are some gray areas but
this is a bug not a feature of AGPL.

Also content creators are not the only users of the software package/CMS
correct?  The folks that log in to read the blogs are also users.

The content creators are in that gray area for distribution.  The content
consumers are not.  Both are users of the code.


> Open Source has never required free-as-in-beer distribution.  Early
> license drafters expected payment for copies of source, and media and
> shipping weren't cheap.
>

If putting the repo behind a $100,000 paywall meets the requirement for
publishing under L0-R then the source isn't really available under terms
normally associated with open source.

The GPL doesn't permit this:

   - b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product
   (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written offer,
   valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you offer spare
   parts or customer support for that product model, to give anyone who
   possesses the object code either (1) a copy of the Corresponding Source for
   all the software in the product that is covered by this License, on a
   durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange, *for
   a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this
   conveying of source, *or (2) access to copy the Corresponding Source
   from a network server at no charge.

Adding this kind of protection to the license would be well worth the
impact to brevity.

It occurs to me that there is also no language in the license to keep the
developers from pointing to a repo behind a paywall that
restricts redistribution of source code or requiring software audits as
part of the terms of access.

GPL has language to protect against these kinds of loopholes and this too
is worth the impact to brevity.

You still have the issue where users have no access to source code because
the repository went away.  Most users would likely depend on the link in
the license to meet their obligation for publishing source code.  If that
link were to die then they would be out of compliance with no way to
recover.  Given they aren't developers they may never know the link went
bad or was ever good in the first place.

So I would also like to see language in the license that protects users if
access to the original source code as noted in the license is lost.

We disagree on the basic distinction you draw between users and
> developers.  We may not resolve that disagreement, and we may not need to.
> I think I know where you're coming from.  To give you a sense of where I'm
> coming from: I couldn't help noticing, browsing through lists of AGPL
> projects on Wikipedia, how many are either databases (MongoDB, Neo4j
> extensions) or network applications (Diaspora, Gitorious).  Software very
> often run with, or for, others.
>

The difference between developers and users is still very relevant.

By claiming that the OSI should ignore the distinction because the AGPL has
slightly muddied the waters is like claiming we can ignore the difference
between people who craft chairs and people who sit on them because some
users paint their chairs or put stickers on them blurs the line between
users and furniture makers.

So yeah, we disagree.  Determining impact to the user community as well as
the developer community is part of the license approval process.

> I have triggered #3 by developing code based on L0-R.  I must now publish
> > the code.
>
> For completeness: or cease executing or developing it, or cease using the
> L0-R code in doing so.


Thank you for the clarification.  I would ask that you put that into the
license text.


> Nigel, brother, it's hard to read retorts about my own intent with a level
> head.
>

My apologies.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20170926/47061f57/attachment.html>