<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<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>I think you have three issues. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>First, I don’t think you two are talking about the same draft. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Second, I don’t believe your license achieves the goal you desire because ultimately what you want isn’t open source
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>And finally, it appears to me that it may be possible to easily circumvent your intent because the business entity can make their changes under BSD and simply not provide source to any of the internal users of the derivative work fulfilling both BSD and
L0R requirements. No one else is legally authorized to make that source available to anyone...not even the actual coders. The requirement for a public repo isn’t in the last draft.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I think...because I’m not sure the last draft I read really is the last draft.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>You can continue to patch your license to close loopholes but attempting to force commercial users to pay the developers ultimately isn’t open source. It’s a shared source model with dual licensing.
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>/shrug</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I’m not against that desire, and in fact am for it, but you’re trying to do something the OSD guards against.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>There’s also no reason to allow this license to pass muster while also stating non-commercial source available licenses isn’t “open source”.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>At the end of the day both try to achieve the same goal: make commercial users pay for using the work.</div>
<div><br>
</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>Tuesday, Oct 24, 2017, 8:49 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">On 2017-10-24 17:10, Bruce Perens wrote:<br>
> Can we get back to writing licenses now, please?<br>
<br>
Yes, I'd love to. But frankly, apart from waiting to hear<br>
back from Richard and McCoy, and giving your latest message<br>
its second read, I'm feeling less and less like I know what<br>
to do.<br>
<br>
To give a sense, it came as a surprise to read that you<br>
think a draft---which draft?---is OSD-conformant as revised.<br>
I think that's the first vote of such confidence I've heard<br>
on the conformance question.<br>
<br>
I'm equally tempted to stand on whatever you think conforms,<br>
ask that it be reported to the board, and wait for whatever<br>
feedback comes of that, on the one hand, or to rewrite the<br>
whole thing from scratch with a free hand, best I can, on<br>
the other.<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>