<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Exchange Server">
<!-- converted from text --><style><!-- .EmailQuote { margin-left: 1pt; padding-left: 4pt; border-left: #800000 2px solid; } --></style>
</head>
<body>
<div>
<div>Hmmm maybe I misunderstand Clause 2 but I'm uncomfortable with shifting the burden of source code publication to users of software rather than developers.
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>For example developer uses L0-R code during <span style="font-size:14.666666984558105px">
</span><span style="font-size:14.666666984558105px"><Grace Period> to develop and completes an app and then gives it to users, with or without source code. Because the L0-R also "triggers on execution" the (probably non-technical) users of the code must publish
the source code (which they may not have) somewhere or be in violation of the license.</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:14.666666984558105px">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Can the agent or upstream L0-R developers sue these users for non-compliance and copyright infringement?
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If I buy a TV with non-compliant L0-R code what are my responsibilities and how do I fix it if I never got source?
</div>
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:14.666666984558105px">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>There will also be confusion as to what, if any, L0-R code has triggered the waiver and "reverts to BSD-2".
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>From the developer prospective what happens to older versions of the code? A new release may transfer license agency to new entity but version x-1 may be pointed at some old agent and a URL that no longer exists.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Is that older version now waivered (after the grace period) and free for use as if L0-R is BSD?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>How do I as developer of L0-R code retroactively change agency for a version published in some unknown repo somewhere? Or am I stuck and never able to switch agents?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>How does a downstream developer know that the agency has changed if the old links don't work? How do they even know how long it's been since alternative licenses haven't been available?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Can that agency disrupt my software support business based on releasing L0-R open source by simply making new licenses unavailable?
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Why would I want to trust anyone but myself as that agent?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I'm thinking you haven't minimized legal ponderings...</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</span></div>
<div class="x_gw_quote" style="border-top:#b5c4df 1pt solid; padding-top:6px; font-size:14px">
<div><b>From: </b><span>Kyle Mitchell <<a href="mailto:kyle@kemitchell.com">kyle@kemitchell.com</a>></span></div>
<div><b>Date: </b><span>Friday, Sep 22, 2017, 8:52 PM</span></div>
<div><b>To: </b><span>License submissions for OSI review <<a href="mailto:license-review@opensource.org">license-review@opensource.org</a>></span></div>
<div><b>Subject: </b><span>Re: [License-review] For Approval: License Zero Reciprocal Public License</span></div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<font size="2"><span style="font-size:10pt;">
<div class="PlainText">A quick bit of procedural history: My<br>
original message to license-review didn't get<br>
delivered, for whatever reason. A follow-up did.<br>
This reply reproduces my initial responses to the<br>
new-license questionnaire, along with with the<br>
most recent text of the proposed license.<br>
<br>
Submission:<br>
<br>
I am submitting the License Zero Reciprocal Public<br>
License (L0-R) for approval as an Open Source<br>
license on behalf of Artless Devices LLC. Artless<br>
Devices LLC is a California business entity, and I<br>
am its sole member and manager. The company<br>
operates licensezero.com, a software<br>
dual-licensing and relicensing agency.<br>
<br>
<br>
Rationale:<br>
<br>
L0-R aims to implement a clear and<br>
stronger-than-strong variant of copyleft,<br>
minimizing community-side legal pondering and<br>
maximizing dual-licensing opportunity.<br>
<br>
<br>
Distinguish:<br>
<br>
1. L0-R is based on BSD-2-Clause. L0-R adds<br>
metadata to the copyright notice, a notice of<br>
source code availability, obligations to retain<br>
the new notice, and a new, third, copyleft<br>
condition.<br>
<br>
2. L0-R sits with the stronger copyleft licenses,<br>
such as GPL and AGPL. L0-R's trigger for<br>
copyleft breaks sooner, on "execution" or<br>
"development" of software with the licensed work,<br>
rather than distribution or provision over a<br>
network. L0-R's copyleft obligations are both<br>
stronger and weaker. Subject software must be<br>
published as source code, but can be licensed<br>
under any combination of OSI-approved terms.<br>
<br>
3. L0-R stands distinct from all Open Source<br>
licenses of which I'm aware in three lesser<br>
respects. First, it directs licensees to an<br>
agent for sale of alternative licenses.<br>
Second, it sets up automatic waiver of its<br>
copyleft condition in the event alternative<br>
licenses cease to be available. Third,<br>
copyleft obligations kick in only after a<br>
grace period of some calendar days.<br>
<br>
3. L0-R grew out of a prior license, the License<br>
Zero Noncommercial Public License (L0-NC), also<br>
based on BSD-2-Clause:<br>
<br>
<a href="https://licensezero.com/licenses/noncommercial/diff">https://licensezero.com/licenses/noncommercial/diff</a><br>
<br>
L0-NC is clearly _not_ Open Source, though it<br>
reverts more directly back to an unmodified<br>
BSD-2-Clause by effect of its automatic waiver.<br>
<br>
<br>
Legal Review:<br>
<br>
I am a licensing lawyer, I took the first drafts,<br>
and I made the first revisions. I've been<br>
fortunate to receive very generous private<br>
feedback from fellow attorneys, but I will stand<br>
behind this proposal alone.<br>
<br>
<br>
Proliferation Category:<br>
<br>
Other (with a follow-on question)<br>
<br>
L0-R is not yet in wide current use, evidencing a well<br>
known chicken-and-egg problem ... and a nice<br>
structural brake on needless proliferation. I<br>
believe L0-R does enough that's new and useful to<br>
warrant review. I believe it would proliferate<br>
new ideas.<br>
<br>
I would also be interested in the correct process<br>
for, and results of, reviewing L0-R terms assuming<br>
automatic waiver of condition 3, by its own terms.<br>
I suspect those terms would be classed "Redundant",<br>
especially of BSD-2-Clause, despite the added<br>
source-availability notice.<br>
<br>
<br>
Plain Text:<br>
<br>
The plain text of the license follows. This text<br>
is _not_ final, and I look forward to feedback.<br>
Text set <like this> denotes a placeholder. I'm<br>
by no means wedded to that convention.<br>
<br>
<br>
License Zero Reciprocal Public License <Version><br>
<br>
Copyright <Name><br>
<Jurisdiction> (ISO 3166-2)<br>
<br>
Ed25519: <Public Key><br>
<br>
Source code is available at:<br>
<Repository><br>
<br>
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without<br>
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions<br>
are met:<br>
<br>
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright<br>
and source availability notices, this list of conditions and the<br>
following disclaimer.<br>
<br>
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright<br>
and source availability notices, this list of conditions and the<br>
following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials<br>
provided with the distribution.<br>
<br>
3. Uses in the execution or development of any computer program, the<br>
entire source code of which is not published and publicly licensed<br>
under licenses approved by the Open Source Initiative, must be<br>
limited to a period of <Grace Period> consecutive calendar days. This<br>
condition is waived if licenses permitting those uses cease to be<br>
available via the following agent, or a successor named in a<br>
subsequent release, for <Waiver Period> consecutive calendar days:<br>
<br>
<Agent Information><br>
<br>
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS<br>
"AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT<br>
LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR<br>
A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT<br>
HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,<br>
SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT<br>
LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE,<br>
DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY<br>
THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT<br>
(INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE<br>
OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.<br>
<br>
<br>
Sincerest thanks to all for time and input.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
K<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Kyle Mitchell, attorney // Oakland // (510) 712 - 0933<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
License-review mailing list<br>
License-review@opensource.org<br>
<a href="https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review">https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review</a><br>
</div>
</span></font>
</body>
</html>