[License-review] For Approval: Rewrite of License Zero Reciprocal Public License

[Carlo Piana]

On 08/11/2017 18:51, Bruce Perens wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 9:34 AM, John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org
> <mailto:cowan at ccil.org>> wrote:
>
>
>
>     On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com
>     <mailto:bruce at perens.com>> wrote:
>
>         In your license, you are asking for an *unrelated* program to
>         be made Open Source due to a condition predicated on a
>         specific form of use. Besides being clearly against OSD # 6
>         (and sorry, OSI is not now required to announce this obvious
>         fact),
>
>
>     I don't see this.  If OSD #6 means, or is interpreted to mean, "no
>     discrimination against particular tasks", then I can see it, and
>     that's a license prohibition I would support.  But I have trouble
>     reading it into the text of #6.  Can you explicate?
>
>
> Here is the relevant L0-R text:
>
> /5. If you run this software to analyze, modify, or generate
>      software, you must release source code for that software./
> /
> /
> Analysis, modification, and generation of software are a field of
> endeavor under OSD # 6. OSD #2 says the /program /must include source
> code, so it overrides any provision in OSD # 6 that would prevent the
> program from having source code. But not /other /programs. So, GPL OK,
> King Midas not OK.
>
> We strengthen this with OSD # 9 requiring that the license not bind to
> other software that is simply distributed with the Open Source. 

[...]

Il love this King Midas analogy. It is quite graphic and I could not
agree more with Bruce. The provision Bruce has extracted is not an
acceptable one in open source. I have already stated my case, many
others have, I stand firm in my belief. I am shocked we are still
arguing something that should have been long settled by now.

Our world has fought long battles against the characterization of
copyleft as "viral", which in turn is intended in the pejorative
"infectious", a frivolous yet still today damaging concept that detracts
many from using copyleft software. A license containing such language
would be indeed flat out infectious, the legal equivalent of a virus.
The fact that this would also be legally sound, just worsens the
situation. Let's imagine a Patrick McHardy using that clause. You must
be kidding me.

Sorry for the additional noise.

Carlo

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20171108/987cf50f/attachment.html>