I read your license, and I like the idea. It does seem a bit complicated, but I guess that's inherent in having to wade through payments and private licenses and such. I'm curious, was the LR-0 approved by the OSI? I can't find it on their website.
And thank you for reading the license! I've probably poured more time into that document than any other in my career. You're right: there is some inherent complexity in what it attempts to do, compared to permissive open source licenses like MIT or Apache.
Since submitting the license to OSI for approval, the discussion has repeatedly gone off the rails, consuming months of time and thousands upon thousands of words on the mailing list. The silver lining: accepting that OSI approval won't be forthcoming, soon or at all, and that it isn't worth what I thought it was, frees me up to focus even more sharply on clarity and simplicity. If you're interested, I'd love your feedback on this post-OSI "fork":
https://github.com/licensezero/parity-public-license/blob/ma...
I've already had some great feedback from others. A few let me thank them publicly in the repo.
I'd challenge that. Under copyleft and other "share-alike" or "reciprocal" licenses, loading isn't free for everyone, in particular those who create software. There's a cost in sharing source and rights for new code.
I think the community as a whole has forgotten that, because copyleft licenses have fallen behind the times. With a glaring, unpatched vulnerability like the ASP loophole affecting most copyleft code, the terms of the licenses no longer implement the deal their authors wanted to make. Which is why I proposed the license in the second quote you pulled.