<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto">Unsubscribe<br><br><div id="AppleMailSignature"><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Mit freundlichen Grüßen</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"> </span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Christian Solmecke</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"> </span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">-------------------------------</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Christian Solmecke, LL.M.</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Rechtsanwalt</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"> </span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">WILDE BEUGER SOLMECKE</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Rechtsanwälte</span></div><div><a href="x-apple-data-detectors://3" dir="ltr" x-apple-data-detectors="true" x-apple-data-detectors-type="address" x-apple-data-detectors-result="3" style="-webkit-text-decoration-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.258824); background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><font color="#000000">Kaiser-Wilhelm-Ring 27-29</font></a></div><div><a href="x-apple-data-detectors://3" dir="ltr" x-apple-data-detectors="true" x-apple-data-detectors-type="address" x-apple-data-detectors-result="3" style="-webkit-text-decoration-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.258824); background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><font color="#000000">50672 Köln</font></a></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"> </span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Tel. <a href="tel:+49%20221%20951563-17" dir="ltr" x-apple-data-detectors="true" x-apple-data-detectors-type="telephone" x-apple-data-detectors-result="4">+49 (0) 221 951563-</a>22</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Fax <a href="tel:+49%20221%20951563-3" dir="ltr" x-apple-data-detectors="true" x-apple-data-detectors-type="telephone" x-apple-data-detectors-result="5">+49 (0) 221 951563-3</a></span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"> </span></div><div><a href="http://www.wbs-law.de/" style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><font color="#000000">www.wbs-law.de</font></a></div></div><div><br>Am 23.09.2017 um 03:33 schrieb "<a href="mailto:license-review-request@opensource.org">license-review-request@opensource.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:license-review-request@opensource.org">license-review-request@opensource.org</a>>:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>Send License-review mailing list submissions to</span><br><span> <a href="mailto:license-review@opensource.org">license-review@opensource.org</a></span><br><span></span><br><span>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit</span><br><span> <a href="https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review">https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review</a></span><br><span>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to</span><br><span> <a href="mailto:license-review-request@opensource.org">license-review-request@opensource.org</a></span><br><span></span><br><span>You can reach the person managing the list at</span><br><span> <a href="mailto:license-review-owner@opensource.org">license-review-owner@opensource.org</a></span><br><span></span><br><span>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific</span><br><span>than "Re: Contents of License-review digest..."</span><br><span></span><br><span></span><br><span>Today's Topics:</span><br><span></span><br><span> 1. Re: For Approval: License Zero Reciprocal Public License</span><br><span> (Richard Fontana)</span><br><span> 2. Re: For Approval: License Zero Reciprocal Public License</span><br><span> (Josh berkus)</span><br><span> 3. Re: For Approval: License Zero Reciprocal Public License</span><br><span> (Kyle Mitchell)</span><br><span> 4. Re: For Approval: License Zero Reciprocal Public License</span><br><span> (Kyle Mitchell)</span><br><span> 5. Re: For Approval: License Zero Reciprocal Public License</span><br><span> (Josh berkus)</span><br><span> 6. Re: For Approval: License Zero Reciprocal Public License</span><br><span> (Kyle Mitchell)</span><br><span></span><br><span></span><br><span>----------------------------------------------------------------------</span><br><span></span><br><span>Message: 1</span><br><span>Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2017 20:30:17 -0400</span><br><span>From: Richard Fontana <<a href="mailto:fontana@sharpeleven.org">fontana@sharpeleven.org</a>></span><br><span>To: <a href="mailto:license-review@opensource.org">license-review@opensource.org</a></span><br><span>Subject: Re: [License-review] For Approval: License Zero Reciprocal</span><br><span> Public License</span><br><span>Message-ID:</span><br><span> <<a href="mailto:1506126617.1315966.1115452640.69727340@webmail.messagingengine.com">1506126617.1315966.1115452640.69727340@webmail.messagingengine.com</a>></span><br><span>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"</span><br><span></span><br><span>Kyle, yes please re-send or paste the relevant content from the prior</span><br><span>message.</span><br><span></span><br><span>Thanks!</span><br><span></span><br><span>Richard</span><br><span></span><br><span></span><br><span>On Fri, Sep 22, 2017, at 08:22 PM, Kyle Mitchell wrote:</span><br><blockquote type="cite"><span>Richard,</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Thanks for your message. Sounds like somebody's</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>server ate my e-mail.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Would you like me to resend my prior message, or</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>perhaps paste its content into a reply? I have</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>the proper answers to the intro, rationale,</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>distinctiveness, review, and proliferation</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>questions ready to go.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Best,</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>K</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>--</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Kyle Mitchell, attorney // Oakland // (510) 712 - 0933</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>_______________________________________________</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>License-review mailing list</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="mailto:License-review@opensource.org">License-review@opensource.org</a></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review">https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review</a></span><br></blockquote><span></span><br><span></span><br><span>------------------------------</span><br><span></span><br><span>Message: 2</span><br><span>Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2017 17:37:22 -0700</span><br><span>From: Josh berkus <<a href="mailto:josh@postgresql.org">josh@postgresql.org</a>></span><br><span>To: License submissions for OSI review</span><br><span> <<a href="mailto:license-review@opensource.org">license-review@opensource.org</a>>, Kyle Mitchell <<a href="mailto:kyle@kemitchell.com">kyle@kemitchell.com</a>></span><br><span>Subject: Re: [License-review] For Approval: License Zero Reciprocal</span><br><span> Public License</span><br><span>Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:852a278a-e1f7-c749-8ec9-d856084131de@postgresql.org">852a278a-e1f7-c749-8ec9-d856084131de@postgresql.org</a>></span><br><span>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8</span><br><span></span><br><span>On 09/22/2017 05:09 PM, Kyle Mitchell wrote:</span><br><blockquote type="cite"><span>3. Uses in the execution or development of any computer program, the</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> entire source code of which is not published and publicly licensed</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> under licenses approved by the Open Source Initiative, must be</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> limited to a period of <Grace Period> consecutive calendar days. This</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> condition is waived if licenses permitting those uses cease to be</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> available via the following agent, or a successor named in a</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> subsequent release, for <Waiver Period> consecutive calendar days:</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> <Agent Information></span><br></blockquote><span></span><br><span>This is a fascinating clause, and I would like to hear the reasoning</span><br><span>behind it, both legal and usage.</span><br><span></span><br><span>--Josh Berkus</span><br><span></span><br><span></span><br><span>------------------------------</span><br><span></span><br><span>Message: 3</span><br><span>Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2017 17:52:17 -0700</span><br><span>From: Kyle Mitchell <<a href="mailto:kyle@kemitchell.com">kyle@kemitchell.com</a>></span><br><span>To: License submissions for OSI review <<a href="mailto:license-review@opensource.org">license-review@opensource.org</a>></span><br><span>Subject: Re: [License-review] For Approval: License Zero Reciprocal</span><br><span> Public License</span><br><span>Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:20170923005217.GB9012@dev.kemitchell.com">20170923005217.GB9012@dev.kemitchell.com</a>></span><br><span>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8</span><br><span></span><br><span>A quick bit of procedural history: My</span><br><span>original message to license-review didn't get</span><br><span>delivered, for whatever reason. A follow-up did.</span><br><span>This reply reproduces my initial responses to the</span><br><span>new-license questionnaire, along with with the</span><br><span>most recent text of the proposed license.</span><br><span></span><br><span>Submission:</span><br><span></span><br><span>I am submitting the License Zero Reciprocal Public</span><br><span>License (L0-R) for approval as an Open Source</span><br><span>license on behalf of Artless Devices LLC. Artless</span><br><span>Devices LLC is a California business entity, and I</span><br><span>am its sole member and manager. The company</span><br><span>operates <a href="http://licensezero.com">licensezero.com</a>, a software</span><br><span>dual-licensing and relicensing agency.</span><br><span></span><br><span></span><br><span>Rationale:</span><br><span></span><br><span>L0-R aims to implement a clear and</span><br><span>stronger-than-strong variant of copyleft,</span><br><span>minimizing community-side legal pondering and</span><br><span>maximizing dual-licensing opportunity.</span><br><span></span><br><span></span><br><span>Distinguish:</span><br><span></span><br><span>1. L0-R is based on BSD-2-Clause. L0-R adds</span><br><span> metadata to the copyright notice, a notice of</span><br><span> source code availability, obligations to retain</span><br><span> the new notice, and a new, third, copyleft</span><br><span> condition.</span><br><span></span><br><span>2. L0-R sits with the stronger copyleft licenses,</span><br><span> such as GPL and AGPL. L0-R's trigger for</span><br><span> copyleft breaks sooner, on "execution" or</span><br><span> "development" of software with the licensed work,</span><br><span> rather than distribution or provision over a</span><br><span> network. L0-R's copyleft obligations are both</span><br><span> stronger and weaker. Subject software must be</span><br><span> published as source code, but can be licensed</span><br><span> under any combination of OSI-approved terms.</span><br><span></span><br><span>3. L0-R stands distinct from all Open Source</span><br><span> licenses of which I'm aware in three lesser</span><br><span> respects. First, it directs licensees to an</span><br><span> agent for sale of alternative licenses.</span><br><span> Second, it sets up automatic waiver of its</span><br><span> copyleft condition in the event alternative</span><br><span> licenses cease to be available. Third,</span><br><span> copyleft obligations kick in only after a</span><br><span> grace period of some calendar days.</span><br><span></span><br><span>3. L0-R grew out of a prior license, the License</span><br><span> Zero Noncommercial Public License (L0-NC), also</span><br><span> based on BSD-2-Clause:</span><br><span></span><br><span> <a href="https://licensezero.com/licenses/noncommercial/diff">https://licensezero.com/licenses/noncommercial/diff</a></span><br><span></span><br><span> L0-NC is clearly _not_ Open Source, though it</span><br><span> reverts more directly back to an unmodified</span><br><span> BSD-2-Clause by effect of its automatic waiver.</span><br><span></span><br><span></span><br><span>Legal Review:</span><br><span></span><br><span>I am a licensing lawyer, I took the first drafts,</span><br><span>and I made the first revisions. I've been</span><br><span>fortunate to receive very generous private</span><br><span>feedback from fellow attorneys, but I will stand</span><br><span>behind this proposal alone.</span><br><span></span><br><span></span><br><span>Proliferation Category:</span><br><span></span><br><span>Other (with a follow-on question)</span><br><span></span><br><span>L0-R is not yet in wide current use, evidencing a well</span><br><span>known chicken-and-egg problem ... and a nice</span><br><span>structural brake on needless proliferation. I</span><br><span>believe L0-R does enough that's new and useful to</span><br><span>warrant review. I believe it would proliferate</span><br><span>new ideas.</span><br><span></span><br><span>I would also be interested in the correct process</span><br><span>for, and results of, reviewing L0-R terms assuming</span><br><span>automatic waiver of condition 3, by its own terms.</span><br><span>I suspect those terms would be classed "Redundant",</span><br><span>especially of BSD-2-Clause, despite the added</span><br><span>source-availability notice.</span><br><span></span><br><span></span><br><span>Plain Text:</span><br><span></span><br><span>The plain text of the license follows. This text</span><br><span>is _not_ final, and I look forward to feedback.</span><br><span>Text set <like this> denotes a placeholder. I'm</span><br><span>by no means wedded to that convention.</span><br><span></span><br><span></span><br><span>License Zero Reciprocal Public License <Version></span><br><span></span><br><span>Copyright <Name></span><br><span> <Jurisdiction> (ISO 3166-2)</span><br><span></span><br><span> Ed25519: <Public Key></span><br><span></span><br><span>Source code is available at:</span><br><span><Repository></span><br><span></span><br><span>Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without</span><br><span>modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions</span><br><span>are met:</span><br><span></span><br><span>1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright</span><br><span> and source availability notices, this list of conditions and the</span><br><span> following disclaimer.</span><br><span></span><br><span>2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright</span><br><span> and source availability notices, this list of conditions and the</span><br><span> following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials</span><br><span> provided with the distribution.</span><br><span></span><br><span>3. Uses in the execution or development of any computer program, the</span><br><span> entire source code of which is not published and publicly licensed</span><br><span> under licenses approved by the Open Source Initiative, must be</span><br><span> limited to a period of <Grace Period> consecutive calendar days. This</span><br><span> condition is waived if licenses permitting those uses cease to be</span><br><span> available via the following agent, or a successor named in a</span><br><span> subsequent release, for <Waiver Period> consecutive calendar days:</span><br><span></span><br><span> <Agent Information></span><br><span></span><br><span>THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS</span><br><span>"AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT</span><br><span>LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR</span><br><span>A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT</span><br><span>HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,</span><br><span>SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT</span><br><span>LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE,</span><br><span>DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY</span><br><span>THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT</span><br><span>(INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE</span><br><span>OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.</span><br><span></span><br><span></span><br><span>Sincerest thanks to all for time and input.</span><br><span></span><br><span>Best,</span><br><span></span><br><span>K</span><br><span></span><br><span>--</span><br><span>Kyle Mitchell, attorney // Oakland // (510) 712 - 0933</span><br><span></span><br><span></span><br><span>------------------------------</span><br><span></span><br><span>Message: 4</span><br><span>Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2017 18:19:09 -0700</span><br><span>From: Kyle Mitchell <<a href="mailto:kyle@kemitchell.com">kyle@kemitchell.com</a>></span><br><span>To: Josh berkus <<a href="mailto:josh@postgresql.org">josh@postgresql.org</a>></span><br><span>Cc: License submissions for OSI review <<a href="mailto:license-review@opensource.org">license-review@opensource.org</a>></span><br><span>Subject: Re: [License-review] For Approval: License Zero Reciprocal</span><br><span> Public License</span><br><span>Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:20170923011909.GC9012@dev.kemitchell.com">20170923011909.GC9012@dev.kemitchell.com</a>></span><br><span>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8</span><br><span></span><br><span>Josh,</span><br><span></span><br><span>Thanks for your time, and your interest.</span><br><span></span><br><span>I've just responded to the thread with a copy of</span><br><span>my responses to the standard new-license</span><br><span>questionnaire. I hope some of your answers are</span><br><span>there, at least on a general level.</span><br><span></span><br><span>But since condition 3 is exactly where I suspect</span><br><span>all the action will be, a few notes more, deeper</span><br><span>in the weeds of implementation:</span><br><span></span><br><span>Condition 3 aims to implement a kind of copyleft</span><br><span>condition. It shares the approach of prior</span><br><span>implementations in focusing on source code</span><br><span>availability and licensing terms. It's highly</span><br><span>self-contained, sounding in the point Larry Rosen</span><br><span>made with OSL-versus-AFL.</span><br><span></span><br><span>Compared to the GPL and even AGPL, the "trigger"</span><br><span>for copyleft fires more easily. Rather than focus</span><br><span>on distribution and modification, the language</span><br><span>hooks into use: "execution" and "development" of</span><br><span>software. This encompasses provision over a</span><br><span>network---via "execution"---as under AGPL. It</span><br><span>goes further, extending the share-alike aspects of</span><br><span>the condition to changes made for internal use,</span><br><span>for example.</span><br><span></span><br><span>Once you've triggered the condition, the</span><br><span>requirements are both more and less exacting than</span><br><span>what we see in current mainstream copyleft</span><br><span>licenses.</span><br><span></span><br><span>On the access-to-source front, L0-R requires</span><br><span>_publication_ of source, not just provision to</span><br><span>users. That burden's substantially mitigated by</span><br><span>the availability of free source distribution</span><br><span>online. Many GPL licensees satisfy source</span><br><span>provision by "access ... from a network server at</span><br><span>no charge" today, anyway. Cheaper than media!</span><br><span></span><br><span>On the license-alike front, L0-R requires less</span><br><span>than current copyleft licenses, which prescribe</span><br><span>the same terms, perhaps with a relicensing or</span><br><span>express cross-compatibility "out" for specific,</span><br><span>sister licenses, like (A)GPL-3.0 section 13. L0-R</span><br><span>permits any combination of OSI-approved terms for</span><br><span>implicated programs.</span><br><span></span><br><span>If there's any place where I would most appreciate</span><br><span>feedback, it's on how this approach plays out</span><br><span>where we see license compatibility issues now. My</span><br><span>hope is that it substantially reduces developer</span><br><span>compat head scratching, perhaps at the price of an</span><br><span>opportunity for skulduggery in licensees' choice</span><br><span>of an obscure or otherwise unfortunate</span><br><span>OSI-approved license to achieve compliance. I</span><br><span>have my own little "test suite" of hypotheticals</span><br><span>to run through on it, but it's hard to get these</span><br><span>rights, and I can't pretend my suite's complete.</span><br><span></span><br><span>All of this is mitigated by a "grace period" of a</span><br><span>set number of calendar days. Licensees can make</span><br><span>otherwise noncompliant uses of the L0-R software</span><br><span>for that period.</span><br><span></span><br><span>The last sentence implements an automatic waiver</span><br><span>of the copyleft condition in the event the</span><br><span>licensor stops offering alternative licenses that</span><br><span>_do_ permit uses executing and developing non-OSI,</span><br><span>source-not-available software. In other words, if</span><br><span>the licensor stops dual licensing the code for a</span><br><span>set period, condition 3 writes itself out of the</span><br><span>license, substantially undoing the "patch" to</span><br><span>BSD-2-Clause. The only remaining difference is an</span><br><span>obligation to reproduce the notice of where source</span><br><span>code is available.</span><br><span></span><br><span>Best,</span><br><span></span><br><span>K</span><br><span></span><br><span>--</span><br><span>Kyle Mitchell, attorney // Oakland // (510) 712 - 0933</span><br><span></span><br><span></span><br><span>------------------------------</span><br><span></span><br><span>Message: 5</span><br><span>Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2017 18:24:14 -0700</span><br><span>From: Josh berkus <<a href="mailto:josh@postgresql.org">josh@postgresql.org</a>></span><br><span>To: Kyle Mitchell <<a href="mailto:kyle@kemitchell.com">kyle@kemitchell.com</a>></span><br><span>Cc: License submissions for OSI review <<a href="mailto:license-review@opensource.org">license-review@opensource.org</a>></span><br><span>Subject: Re: [License-review] For Approval: License Zero Reciprocal</span><br><span> Public License</span><br><span>Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:dc507b22-57f0-e04c-cb64-bbff0a62fe78@postgresql.org">dc507b22-57f0-e04c-cb64-bbff0a62fe78@postgresql.org</a>></span><br><span>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8</span><br><span></span><br><span>On 09/22/2017 06:19 PM, Kyle Mitchell wrote:</span><br><blockquote type="cite"><span>The last sentence implements an automatic waiver</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>of the copyleft condition in the event the</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>licensor stops offering alternative licenses that</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>_do_ permit uses executing and developing non-OSI,</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>source-not-available software. In other words, if</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>the licensor stops dual licensing the code for a</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>set period, condition 3 writes itself out of the</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>license, substantially undoing the "patch" to</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>BSD-2-Clause. The only remaining difference is an</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>obligation to reproduce the notice of where source</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>code is available.</span><br></blockquote><span></span><br><span>I'll let the lawyers comment on whether the clause actually does what</span><br><span>you describe. I'll say, as a software developer, that the wording there</span><br><span>is entirely baffling and I have no idea whatsoever what it requires of me.</span><br><span></span><br><span>Your explanation also doesn't explain the role of the "Agent".</span><br><span></span><br><span>--Josh</span><br><span></span><br><span></span><br><span>------------------------------</span><br><span></span><br><span>Message: 6</span><br><span>Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2017 18:33:03 -0700</span><br><span>From: Kyle Mitchell <<a href="mailto:kyle@kemitchell.com">kyle@kemitchell.com</a>></span><br><span>To: Josh berkus <<a href="mailto:josh@postgresql.org">josh@postgresql.org</a>></span><br><span>Cc: License submissions for OSI review <<a href="mailto:license-review@opensource.org">license-review@opensource.org</a>></span><br><span>Subject: Re: [License-review] For Approval: License Zero Reciprocal</span><br><span> Public License</span><br><span>Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:20170923013303.GD9012@dev.kemitchell.com">20170923013303.GD9012@dev.kemitchell.com</a>></span><br><span>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8</span><br><span></span><br><span>Josh,</span><br><span></span><br><span>Thanks again.</span><br><span></span><br><span>I don't mean to baffle. Ideally, the license</span><br><span>terms would explain themselves. But that's in</span><br><span>great tension with keeping things short, BSD</span><br><span>style. I'll end up explaining what this condition</span><br><span>does, one way or another. So I appreciate your</span><br><span>feedback on the challenge I have ahead of me.</span><br><span></span><br><span>The role of the agent under L0-R is to vend</span><br><span>licenses that allow what the public license</span><br><span>prohibits. A company dual licensing software may</span><br><span>publish source under the terms of GPL or AGPL, but</span><br><span>offer licenses without copyleft requirements for a</span><br><span>fee. If the company delegates the job of vending</span><br><span>those licenses to another, that "other" acts as</span><br><span>the company's "agent".</span><br><span></span><br><span>--</span><br><span>Kyle Mitchell, attorney // Oakland // (510) 712 - 0933</span><br><span></span><br><span></span><br><span>------------------------------</span><br><span></span><br><span>Subject: Digest Footer</span><br><span></span><br><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>License-review mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:License-review@opensource.org">License-review@opensource.org</a></span><br><span><a href="https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review">https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review</a></span><br><span></span><br><span></span><br><span>------------------------------</span><br><span></span><br><span>End of License-review Digest, Vol 60, Issue 6</span><br><span>*********************************************</span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>