[License-review] Request for Approval of Universal Permissive License (UPL)

[Gervase Markham]

On 11/04/14 01:39, Jim Wright wrote:
> Many commercial developers require the ability to use code licensed
> from other parties in both commercial offerings and copyleft licensed
> FOSS projects.  They also generally prefer inbound licenses to
> include an express patent license.  This has resulted, among other
> things, in the widespread use of contributor agreements containing
> the desired patent license grants, as neither the BSD nor MIT
> licenses contain an express patent license or address the concept of
> contribution to a larger work, and the Apache license is not
> compatible with the GPLv2.

Did you consider forking the Apache license with an additional
GPL-2-relicensing permissions grant clause?

> The Universal Permissive License (UPL)
> 
> Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders>
> 
> Subject to the condition set forth below, permission is hereby
> granted, free of charge and under any and all patent and copyright
> rights owned or freely licensable by each licensor hereunder, 

Does hereunder mean "written further down in this file", or "under this
license"?

> whether
> an original author or another licensor, to any person obtaining a
> copy of this software, associated documentation and/or data

This part seems to tie the licensing of the software's associated
documentation to the license of the software, without any option to e.g.
Creative Commons the docs and UPL the code. Is that intended?

> (collectively the "Software"), to deal in current and future versions
> of both
> (a) the Software, and (b) any piece of software and/or hardware
> listed in the LARGER_WORKS.TXT file included with the Software (each
> a “Larger Work” to which the Software is contributed by such
> licensors),

Could you explain the rationale behind a specific list of larger works?
The admin of such a list sounds like a pain.

Gerv