<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 2:15 PM, Richard Fontana <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:fontana@sharpeleven.org" target="_blank">fontana@sharpeleven.org</a>></span> wrote:</div><div class="gmail_quote"><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">The BSD license (family) seem to make a distinction between<br>
"redistribution" and "use", as did some other permissive licenses<br>
originating at roughly the same time.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Indeed. I have always assumed that since "redistribution" is a copyright matter,</div><div>"use" is the patent term of art, and therefore the BSD license is both a copyright</div><div>and a patent license. The MIT license contains the verbs "use", "sublicense", and</div><div>"sell copies", which I believe are patent terms also (although MIT has denied</div><div>this interpretation of the word "use").</div><div><br></div><div>-- </div><div><div>John Cowan <a href="http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan">http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan</a> <a href="mailto:cowan@ccil.org">cowan@ccil.org</a></div><div>We are lost, lost. No name, no business, no Precious, nothing. Only empty.</div><div>Only hungry: yes, we are hungry. A few little fishes, nassty bony little</div><div>fishes, for a poor creature, and they say death. So wise they are; so just,</div><div>so very just. --Gollum</div></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> Others, none ever submitted for<br>
OSI approval AFAIK, merely spoke of permitting "use". I'm not sure if<br>
that was true of any proto-versions of the BSD license, but I am<br>
pretty sure that the earliest versions did not have "with or without<br>
modification" spelled out.<br>
<br>
One could get into whether that's a good way of drafting a copyright<br>
license, but I don't think it's necessary to get into that. We<br>
certainly all accept that the 3-clause and 2-clause BSD licenses are<br>
OSD-conformant. So too derivatives like the recently-approved BSD+Patent<br>
(not to be confused with the late Facebook React license).<br>
<br>
Your license keeps the distinction between "redistribution" and<br>
"use". But partly as a consequence of that, I find the language of the<br>
added clauses confusing. They refer to "uses" where the original BSD<br>
language had (and still has, in your license) "use". Is "uses" the<br>
same as "use", or does it just mean "particular forms of the thing<br>
that was previously referred to in the singular as "use""? Or no?<br>
<br>
If "uses" is essentially the same as, or just a pluralization of,<br>
"use" as used in the initial grant language, doesn't that suggest that<br>
clauses 3 and 4 somehow don't cover the redistribution case? Maybe<br>
that doesn't matter, but I'm finding it at least distracting. :)<br>
<br>
Or why "uses" instead of "use", when everyone is expecting the license<br>
to refer to "use" because that's what its BSD ancestors did?<br>
<br>
Leaving that issue aside, I also find it distracting where the license<br>
says "uses with modification". I find it at least somewhat confusing<br>
phrasing.<br>
<br>
Don't you mean something like this: If you've exercised the right to<br>
modify which I've semi-implicitly granted you with my BSD-derived<br>
grant language, then in proceeding to "use" that modified version --<br>
which I will assume for the moment is really "distribution and use",<br>
or "use including distribution" -- at all points in time in which the<br>
"use" is taking place, the code has to be "Open Source" in the OSD<br>
sense (including the fact that I must publish source code if otherwise<br>
there'd be no licensing act and source code wouldn't be available to<br>
anyone but me)?<br>
<br>
Would it be equivalent to say something like: If you modify this code,<br>
you must publish the modifications under an OSI-approved license<br>
within <Grace Period> days? Not suggesting that's better wording but<br>
I'm trying to rephrase what I think the intended meaning is. My<br>
rephrasing there also may make clearer what some may see as an open<br>
source conformance issue.<br>
<br>
I may have a comment on clause 4, but I will leave it there for the<br>
moment.<br>
<br>
Richard<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017, at 08:27 PM, Kyle Mitchell wrote:<br>
> Revising the text of the proposed license, per feedback here<br>
> on license-review and elsewhere.<br>
><br>
> Also replying to the original message this time. If I<br>
> revise again, I'll do the same, so it's easier to find.<br>
><br>
> First the new text, then a few notes.<br>
><br>
> Text:<br>
><br>
> License Zero Reciprocal Public License <Version><br>
><br>
> Copyright <Year> <Copyright Holder><br>
><br>
> Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with<br>
> or without modification, are permitted provided that the<br>
> following conditions are met:<br>
><br>
> 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above<br>
> copyright notice, this list of conditions and the<br>
> following disclaimer.<br>
><br>
> 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the<br>
> above copyright notice, this list of conditions and<br>
> the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or<br>
> other materials provided with the distribution.<br>
><br>
> 3. Uses with any modification that is not "Open Source"<br>
> as defined by the Open Source Initiative must be<br>
> limited to <Grace Period> calendar days.<br>
><br>
> 4. Uses as part of, or in development of, other<br>
> software that is not "Open Source" as defined by the<br>
> Open Source Initiative must be limited to <Grace<br>
> Period> calendar days.<br>
><br>
> THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND<br>
> CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED<br>
> WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED<br>
> WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A<br>
> PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE<br>
> COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY<br>
> DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR<br>
> CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,<br>
> PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF<br>
> USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER<br>
> CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN<br>
> CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING<br>
> NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE<br>
> USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY<br>
> OF SUCH DAMAGE.<br>
><br>
> Notes:<br>
><br>
> - I've removed all mention of agent for sale of alternative<br>
> licenses, as well as the automatic waiver of the copyleft<br>
> conditions. My motivation was twofold. For one, those<br>
> features produced considerable comment, concern, and<br>
> confusion, aside from the main issue of use conditions<br>
> triggering copyleft. For two, the aim of each can be<br>
> achieved otherwise, outside the license text. As a result,<br>
> the proposal is now _exactly_ BSD-2-Clause, plus new<br>
> conditions 3 and 4.<br>
><br>
> - The copyleft triggers now speak directly in terms of OSD<br>
> conformance, to catch both source availability and license<br>
> terms requirements. (The assumption is that L0-R, in some<br>
> form, will eventually be recognized itself, so L0-R code<br>
> can clearly incorporate L0-R code.) But that aside, I<br>
> think the new language goes more directly to intent, and<br>
> reads more clearly.<br>
><br>
> - I've split the new conditions across two numbered items.<br>
> This should help clarify that unmodified use alone does<br>
> not trigger share-alike.<br>
><br>
> - I was tempted to define terms for repeated words and<br>
> phrases, but held the urge back. BSD-2-Clause doesn't do<br>
> so, and for this kind of license, stylistically, I think<br>
> that's probably best.<br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Kyle Mitchell, attorney // Oakland // (510) 712 - 0933<br>
> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
> License-review mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:License-review@opensource.org">License-review@opensource.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.opensource.org/<wbr>cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/<wbr>license-review</a><br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
License-review mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:License-review@opensource.org">License-review@opensource.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.opensource.org/<wbr>cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/<wbr>license-review</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>