[License-review] Consensus on L0-R

[Kyle Mitchell]

On 2018-06-20 02:06, Bruce Perens wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 2:08 AM, Kyle Mitchell <kyle at kemitchell.com> wrote:
> >
> > Actually, there I point out that RPL ... Their gap to close was web
> > frameworks. L0-R's is development tools.
>
> Either the RPL passes the OSD or the folks on the board at the time thought
> that it did. This does not, however, give any reason that LR-0 should also
> pass the OSD.

It demonstrates that OSD#6 is not a blanket prohibition on
use restrictions.  RPL contains an explicit use-based
restriction.  It was approved.

> Their intent to close a particular gap, to which you draw a parallel, has
> nothing to do with passing or failing the OSD.

In order to close the web-framework loophole, the drafters
produced a license that requires sharing private changes,
and extends beyond "derivative works", narrowly defined, all
triggered by mere use of their framework.  OSI approved that
license as OSD-conformant.

> > There's no blanket prohibition on use restrictions in #6 as written.
> > Rather, there's a prohibition on restrictions on use in specific fields of
> > endeavor. If "field of endeavor" means running over a network for others
> > without sharing source or licensing on like terms, or running to produce
> > output that's a derivative of the program, OSI has approved licenses that
> > fail #6.
>
> Nope. You are taking use and attempting to apply it to derivative works
> again.

Creating a derivative work alone does not trigger approved
network-copyleft licenses like AGPL that do not require
release of private changes.  The trigger is both
modification _and_ use.  Under OSL, use without modification
triggers.

> Use in #6 means run the program. Use for a field of endeavor means to *run
> the program* for any form of work. It is equivalent to "use for any
> purpose."
>
> > Fortunately, the more natural reading of "field of endeavor", and the
> > examples in OSD#6, don't cover means of endeavoring, like closed,
> > proprietary software development.
>
> OSD #6 requries that you be permitted to *run *any Open Source program for
> closed, proprietary software development, which is a field of endeavor. And
> thus LR-0 fails the OSD. You can't create a proprietary derivative of the
> program.

I cannot run AGPL, OSL, or RPL to provide a closed,
proprietary network service.  I cannot modify AGPL, OSL, or
GPL code to create a derivative, closed, proprietary network
service.

> >Use is not an exclusive right of copyright holders under the Copyright
> > Act.  It appears in one narrow provision, 117, which applies only to owners
> > and distinctly owner-like licensees of copies.
> >
>
> You missed 1201, and if I took more than a minute I could probably find
> more.

That's DMCA, not core Copyright Act.

The right to repair controversy and the general expansion of
copyright protection support my point on the extent to which
copyright licenses can regulate conduct involving verbs
other than those in 106, which entail those in 106.  As does
enforcement of use-restricting proprietary licenses, and
even use-restricting public licenses like CC-BY-NC.

> > As for OSD reading number three, I'm sorry, I don't follow.
> >
>
> You wanted to know why GPL passed OSD and LR-0 did not.

AGPL, specifically.  Network copyleft.

> > What do #2, #3, and #6 require that L0-R fails to provide,
> >
>
> The right to run the program for use to analyze etc. proprietary software.
>
> > This is consensus deployed as a procedural weapon, not
> > sought as a goal.
>
> No, if anything is a procedural weapon, it is your insistence on re-arguing
> the same topics many times over months.

You rebooted this discussion.  I wrote months ago that I
wouldn't push this process on my own any longer, but that
I'd remain available and respond to others.

> Your license is not Open Source.
> You will not be able to convince anyone that it's Open Source with language
> implementing a use restriction. No amount of argument will change that.

I read and understand that you believe open source licenses
cannot impose any use restrictions whatsoever, that they
cannot implement strong reciprocity by requiring proprietary
users to share alike without yawning loopholes.

I do not read or understand how that follows from the text
of OSD alone, without additional revelation from you,
applied to approve licenses that impose use restrictions on
means rather than fields.

> >   I make my code available for use in free software, and not
> >   for use in proprietary software, in order to encourage
> >   other people who write software to make it free as well. I
> >   figure that since proprietary software developers use
> >   copyright to stop us from sharing, we cooperators can use
> >   copyright to give other cooperators an advantage of their
> >   own: they can use our code.
> >
>
> That is fine. Give it another name than Open Source. Bask in your fame when
> everyone decides to do it your way. Start today. OSI and I are not stopping
> you.

You're promoting a rule for software licenses that objective
readings of OSD against the approved license list don't
require.  The rules that do follow, plus the rule you
propose, is "permissive open source", a subspecies.

I'm not here to pass a reciprocal open source license off as
a permissive open source license.  Rather, I'm here to ask
the same question I started with:  Does OSD prohibit us from
closing reciprocity loopholes in AGPL-style network copyleft
licenses?  The answer for OSL and RPL was "no, it doesn't".
What text of the OSD draws the line between RPL and L0-R?

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