[License-review] Consensus on L0-R

[Kyle Mitchell]

On 2018-06-20 17:06, John Cowan wrote:
> > > You missed 1201, and if I took more than a minute I could probably find
> > > more.
> >
> > That's DMCA, not core Copyright Act.
>
> "The law of the land is the law."

A statute is a statute.  But this particular statute is not
in the decision tree we're discussing, albeit in title 17.

That's because section 1201 is not an addition to the list
of exclusive rights of copyright holders.  It's a blanket
prohibition on circumventing technical measures aimed at
protecting those preexisting rights.  1201(c)(1) reads:

  Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies,
  limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement,
  including fair use, under this title.

I'm sure Bruce is right that "use" appears elsewhere in
title 17, besides in just 106 and 117.  But that doesn't
mean "use" is an exclusive right of copyright holders.
Licensors have to link breach of conditions on "use", like
AGPL 13, back to infringement of the exclusive rights of
copyright holders to claim copyright infringement.  Patent
licensors, by contrast, can point right to the statute
listing grounds for patent infringement.

> > 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
> >
>
> I don't think you'll find anyone other than yourself (and the long-ago
> authors of the RPL) who believe otherwise.
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> The GPL is obviously reciprocal and imposes no use restriction.
> If it did, it would contradict Freedom 0 from the same organization.

GPL doesn't produce the contradiction under Bruce' reading
of OSD#6.  AGPL does, as do the other network-copyleft
licenses I've mentioned.

The motivation for network-copyleft licenses is the reality
of ASP and other loopholes.  Reciprocity is a kind of deal,
not a kind of terms.  Terms don't achieve reciprocity with
well known, broadly exploited vulnerabilities that permit
the take without the give.

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