[License-review] Consensus on L0-R

[John Cowan]

On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 6:29 PM, Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 2:13 PM, Kyle Mitchell <kyle at kemitchell.com>
> wrote:
>
>> RPL contains an explicit use-based restriction.
>>
>
> Oh? What can you not use RPL software for?
>
>  > requires sharing private changes
>
> Not an issue for the OSD.
>

Although the OSD doesn't say so, licenses that require sharing private
changes have not normally made it through the OSI, with the exception of
the RPL.  There is the issue of how widely you have to share in order to be
"sharing", and if there is a required recipient (such as the initial
contributor), there is the problem of what to do when that entity no longer
exists.  The GPL's requirement to share source to those who receive the
binary is the effective outer limit of OSI licenses.

-- 
John Cowan          http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan        cowan at ccil.org
SAXParserFactory [is] a hideous, evil monstrosity of a class that should
be hung, shot, beheaded, drawn and quartered, burned at the stake,
buried in unconsecrated ground, dug up, cremated, and the ashes tossed
in the Tiber while the complete cast of Wicked sings "Ding dong, the
witch is dead."  --Elliotte Rusty Harold on xml-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20180620/aaa7378d/attachment.html>