[License-review] Consensus on L0-R

[Smith, McCoy]

Kyle:

Is there a latest-and-greatest version of your license to which you are referring/arguing?  Last I saw was this:
http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2017-October/003247.html

But I'm not sure if there were further changes after that posting.

I gave you a bunch of comments, including pointing out what I believed to be an inarguable (IMO) violation of OSD #9 by that draft:
http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2017-November/003256.html

I think I had previously expressed the opinion that your "maximalist copyleft" goal, if drafted in a way that was clear and got rid of your OSD #6 & #9 problem, would (again, IMO) pass the OSD but would be a bad idea and unlikely to get much, if any, uptake:
http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2017-October/003227.html

At this point, you seem to be going down the road of "I want the maximalist of maximalist copyleft licenses, RPL, AGPL are OSI approved, and are maximalist, but not as much as LZPL. If AGPL & RPL pass the OSD, I pass the OSD."  I'm not sure that necessarily tracks (for example, the passage in your draft that said "If you run this software to analyze, modify, or generate software, you must release source code for that software" is a step beyond AGPL & RPL which (IMO) puts it over the OSD #9 line).

There is an interesting underlying discussion (which I mentioned last year) about Freedom Zero and whether that is part of the OSD (expressly, or by implication), and whether, e.g., LZPL & RPL violate that.   

You've gotten a lot of (IMO) helpful comments from people about: a) the drafting of your license; b) the goals of your license; c) the compliance of your license with the letter (and spirit, if there is such a thing) of the OSD, but at this point you seem to just shaking your fist at the injustice of not getting your license approved, or at least not explaining why you think the commentary you have received is invalid or contrary to your aims (although given the extensive commentary and responses you have given, and the difficult of sifting through the mailing list to see all the commentary and how you have addressed it, I'm not clear where you are on your license text and the comments upon it).

You might want to do a reboot of the process, as at this point the discussion seems wholly unconstructive.

Disclaimer: I'm a lawyer, have no affiliation with OSI (other than participating in a license proliferation committee over a decade ago), and my views don't represent the OSI, or their board, or the consensus of the mailing list, AFAIK.

McCoy


-----Original Message-----
From: License-review [mailto:license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org] On Behalf Of Kyle Mitchell
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 3:57 PM
To: License submissions for OSI review <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
Subject: Re: [License-review] Consensus on L0-R

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

_______________________________________________
License-review mailing list
License-review at lists.opensource.org
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org