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

[Kyle Mitchell]

Bruce,

I'd be interested in your opinion on this revision, which splits the
use-triggered copyleft conditions across two numbered items:

    3.  Uses with any modification that is not "Open Source" as defined
        by the Open Source Initiative must be limited to a period of
        <Grace Period> consecutive calendar days.

    4.  Uses as a component of{, or in the development of,} other software
        that is not "Open Source" as defined by the Open Source Initiative
        must be limited to a period of <Grace Period> consecutive calendar days.

Do I guess correctly that you'd support this variation _without_
the text in curly braces, but oppose it with, on the basis of field
of use discrimination?

I'd like to argue "field of use", but want to prioritize improvements
to clarity and "safe harbor" for non-developer users, which respond
to many others' comments, too.

On the clarity front, this revision brings the concept of "Open
Source" in straight from OSI.  That's really what earlier language
about published source and license terms wanted.  It struck me that
many edge cases of concern, especially those that Nigel brought up,
went right to factual criteria that the Definition touches, but my
original draft's somewhat reductionist "model" of Open Source missed.

For non-developer users, I think breaking out the condition this way
helps make clear that unmodified use, not as a component of other
software, doesn't come under any of the conditions to the general
grant of permission without condition.

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