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

[Josh berkus]

On 10/23/2017 02:39 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> 
> 
> On 23 Oct 2017 20:54, "Carlo Piana" <osi-review at piana.eu
> <mailto:osi-review at piana.eu>> wrote:
> 
>     On 23/10/2017 20:39, Florian Weimer wrote:
>     > * Kyle Mitchell:
>     >
>     >>     3.  Uses with any modification that is not "Open Source"
>     >>         as defined by the Open Source Initiative must be
>     >>         limited to <Grace Period> calendar days.
>     >>
>     >>     4.  Uses as part of, or in development of, other
>     >>         software that is not "Open Source" as defined by the
>     >>         Open Source Initiative must be limited to <Grace
>     >>         Period> calendar days.
>     > What is this supposed to mean?
>     >
>     > Usually, mere “use” of a software (in the sense of running the code)
>     > cannot be open source or not.  That distinction only arises if
>     > redistribution happens.
>     >
>     > Clause 4 seems to restrict the use (running) of the software to
>     > open-source development.  This is pretty close to a restriction on
>     > fields of endeavor.
>     That's precisely my point. It is a restriction on fields of endeavor.
> 
>     > Even the most restrictive open source licenses
>     > (like a common interpretation of the Sleeypcat license, or the QPL)
>     > permit arbitrary use for your own internal purpose.  From a practical
>     > point of view, this is very important because it allows you to avoid
>     > complex license management for purely internal applications.
> 
> 
> This is a show-stopper to me. A license that attempts to
> control/restrict mere use seems to deny freedom zero, which is a
> precondition of the whole OSD.

Per Kyle's responses, this isn't intentional, but does point to the need
for a wording change.