<div dir="ltr">On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 1:29 PM, Kyle Mitchell <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kyle@kemitchell.com" target="_blank">kyle@kemitchell.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
L0-R aims to implement a clear and stronger-than-strong<br>
variant of copyleft, minimizing community-side legal<br>
pondering and maximizing dual-licensing opportunity.<span class="gmail-HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
</font></span></blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">I think with the rewrite that you've accomplished this beautifully, and I found your initial draft and manifesto confusing and grating respectively. Whatever their objectives, future license drafters are taking notes, I hope. Well done.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">It's OSD conformant, and if it's not, the OSD could use some clarification. I doubt OSI approval is really all that important for the success of LZ though -- approval or not, surely this license will join AGPL on lists like <a href="https://opensource.google.com/docs/thirdparty/licenses/#banned">https://opensource.google.com/docs/thirdparty/licenses/#banned</a> approval -- which presumably is taken into account in your theory of how to maximize dual-licensing opportunity.<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Mike</div></div>