> Use with non-OSS modifications, as a component of non-OSS, or to develop non-OSS (the most controversial) falls outside L0-R's license conditions, after a grace period.
I'm trying to understand your "controversial" clause. I have doubts this is compatible with any existing definition of FOSS, but maybe I'm misunderstanding.
Does that mean everything I create with a software under that license is under the same license?
To put this into a concrete example: If I have a text processor under that license - does that mean if I use it to write my emails I have to disclose my emails to anyone who is asking, because they're now under a copyleft license?
If you're correct, it's unlikely that this license would be enforceable under current copyright law. This can only work if output contains parts of the copyrighted work (see: Bison's GPL exception).
I'm trying to understand your "controversial" clause. I have doubts this is compatible with any existing definition of FOSS, but maybe I'm misunderstanding.
Does that mean everything I create with a software under that license is under the same license? To put this into a concrete example: If I have a text processor under that license - does that mean if I use it to write my emails I have to disclose my emails to anyone who is asking, because they're now under a copyleft license?