[License-review] Consensus on L0-R

[Kyle Mitchell]

McCoy,

Thanks for your note.  And for your earlier input.  You're
right:  I have a lot to be thankful for here.

That includes our back-and-forth on OSD#9.

Thanks for linking your message.  Bruce responded with more
thoughts on your OSD#9 points, so in my response to you, I
mentioned that I'd follow up in reply to him.  'Twas here:

http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2017-October/003253.html

(The relevant part starts "I read OSD 9...".)

Shortly, for those who'd rather not go archive spelunking:
I argued that the most natural reading of OSD#9 calls back
to the DFSG/Linux-distro context, instead of hinging on the
heading.  Disallow licenses for packages that would create
liability for the distributor by specifying which other
packages they can and can't accompany in distribution.  In
other words, address the fear allayed in GPLv1 and v2 with
the language starting "mere aggregation ... on the volume of
a storage or distribution medium...".

I agree that under OSD, every open source package should
come sealed, watertight, shouldn't "contaminate" other
packages it happens to be shipped, or creating explosive
license-terms combinations.  (The contamination metaphor
comes from the original DFSG heading of $9.)  End users, on
the other hand, can and will open the packages, running the
programs and working with the source code.  If end-users
trigger share-alike obligations, under the terms they've
been provided, that's on them, and not an OSD#9
distributor-protection problem.

That reading doesn't trouble GPL, which existed at the time.
And it doesn't trouble later network-copyleft licenses.

As for L0-R, I sought parity with BSD on unmodified
distribution, so L0-R code could travel in the same
networks.  That largely drove basing the ill-fated first
draft on BSD.  All of L0-R's share-alike conditions were
meant to trigger on things developers and users might do,
not the things the distributors giving them copies might do.


Thank you also for reflecting back some of my comments on
AGPL, OSL, and RPL.  I'd clarify only that I don't think
prior approval of those licenses _compels_ approval of L0-R,
because, as you say, L0-R has unique features.  Hence no
proliferation issue.  Rather, I think prior approval of
those licenses requires expressing a reading of OSD,
consistent with its text and the approved-license list, that
approved licenses meet, and that L0-R does not.  That's what
I'm missing.  When Bruce says that OSD#6 prohibits _any_
condition triggered by use, I cite AGPL, OSL, and RPL
because they fail that test.  By contradiction, that's not
what OSD#6 meant before.  I'd cite RPL's broad definition of
"Extensions" against your reading of OSD#9.


"Which license text are you talking about?" is very, very
well taken.  And the source of my enthusiasm for the
license-review platform conversation.

At the same time, I'm leery of sending yet another updated
application message.  Frankly, I don't really want to
"reboot" this process.  Without meaning to diminish yours or
anyone else's feedback, your objection wasn't the only one
offered as "inarguable".  Discussion in that kind of
frame---and a requirement of prior consensus, where
consensus means universal veto---is a pretty bleak
proposition.

So I mentioned last year, before the mailing list tanked,
that I was done making steam to keep this process rolling.
But also that I'd continue responding to others, like Bruce
this month.  That's where I stand now. I don't expect much
if anything, formally, from this process.  I have no firm
basis on which to expect a board decision, or even board
feedback.  But I'd like to see a compelling OSD argument.
And I'm loathe to sulk away, as I'm encouraged to do, and
stand by silently as shots ring out on the license or my
attempt to follow the process guide.  Maybe that's good time
after bad.


Of course, your point on consolidating my views is also well
taken.  I'm in the process of writing up my case for OSD
conformance, point-by-point, to post online.  But I'm also
leaning _against_ announcing that post here, at least while
the medium is a mailing list.

If you'd like a link when it's ready, I'll be happy to make
a note and send your way.

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