Hi @rachel_norfolk! I think Richard points this out with the License Zero Reciprocal Public License and shares an observation from McCoy Smith on the OSI license-review list. It is less that you are telling people that they cannot do something, but more about telling someone that they must do something. Check out this excerpt from the L0-R:
If you combine this software with other software into a larger
program, you must release any source code for that larger
program that has not yet been released.
If you run this software to analyze, change, or generate
software, you must release source code for that software that
has not yet been released.
I think Richard explains this nuance well in this line:
The accompanying commentary on the FSD suggests that Freedom 0 embodies a kind of privacy right: the user enjoys the freedom “without being required to communicate about [the software] with the developer or any other specific entity.”
Since the Reciprocal Public License is an OSI-approved license, there were some raised eyebrows about the L0-R license when it came through the OSI list. Is this that different? Maybe, maybe not. But either way, ambiguity is the enemy of law and policy in my opinion. So this might be why Richard pointed out that Freedom 0 is missing in the OSD.
Of course… I am not a lawyer and have zero formal legal education background. But this is my interpretation after reading the article and looking at some of the other conversations around the OSD this year.