[License-review] Consensus on L0-R

[Kyle Mitchell]

On 2018-06-20 18:06, John Cowan wrote:
> 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.

I remain grateful for your feedback on exactly this topic,
for L0-R.  The current relevant text reads:

    Releasing source code means publicly licensing it ...
    and promptly publishing it, in the preferred form for
    making changes, to a freely accessible distribution
    system widely used for similarly licensed source code.

The numbered share-alike conditions in turn require release,
as defined.

> The GPL's requirement to share source to those who receive the
> binary is the effective outer limit of OSI licenses.

It's clear you wouldn't approve RPL now.  But for reference,
RPL 1.5 section 6.1 starts:

  You must make available, under the terms of this License,
  the Source Code of any Extensions that You Deploy, via an
  Electronic Distribution Mechanism.

AGPL and OSL also require sharing source in more cases than
just sending a binary.

I take it this "outer limit" is also not in OSD.

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