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

[Chris DiBona]

I have to admit that considering it is oracle (is that correct?) who wrote
this and their position as a belligerent in so many horrific IP cases, hat
we shouldn't accept this in any way until we get real counsel investigating
every syllable of this license.
On Apr 12, 2014 12:59 PM, "Tom Marble" <tmarble at info9.net> wrote:

> On 04/10/2014 07:39 PM, Jim Wright wrote:
> > [...]
> > Rationale & Comparison to Similar Licenses
> > [...]
> > obtaining a copy of this software, associated documentation and/or data
> (collectively the "Software")
> > [...]
> > (b) any piece of software and/or hardware [...]
>
> Could you elaborate on the intent of "and/or hardware"? Is the UPL
> attempting
> to an "open source hardware" license? If so, could you please explain how
> the UPL
> differs from existing hardware licenses, such as the TAPR Open Hardware
> License (OHL)
> and the CERN Open Hardware License (OHL)? How does the challenges presented
> in hardware that have led some to believe FLOSS licenses are not adequate,
> vis
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_hardware#Licenses ?
>
> If not could you please provide the rationale for including hardware
> in clause "b)"?
>
> > [...] listed in the LARGER_WORKS.TXT file included with the Software
> > (each a “Larger Work” to which the Software is contributed by such
> licensors),
>
> As Gerv and Karl have pointed out this clause "b)" is curious
> and problematic. What, exactly, is "b)" hoping to achieve?
>
> Why would the UPL attempt to shortcut licensing clarity for any
> other works for which the copyright owner of this work may also
> (trivially) be the copyright owner of some other works?
> As they say.. "disk space is cheap": why try to declare other
> works in the ancillary LARGER_WORKS.TXT text file instead of
> giving each such work it's own LICENSE file?
>
> Alternatively if LARGER_WORKS.TXT attempts to document all
> potential downstream applications of this work and its
> use in derivative works *ad infinitum*... isn't that
> simply impossible?
>
> Or do we understand this explicit elaboration of works as
> a technique for limiting the scope of the gratis patent grant?
> In other words the is UPL attempting to provide a patent
> grant to assuage concerns of a certain audience about
> potential infringement in using the "Software", but
> only in a limited set of combinations listed in LARGER_WORKS.TXT?
> Must each patent holder *give explicit permission*
> for any use of the "Software" in LARGER_WORKS.TXT
> including any downstream and derivative uses?
>
> In this interpretation does the UPL actually provide
> much value beyond MIT?
>
> Does the UPL meet the spirit of the Open Source Definition
> (esp. 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor)?
>
> > It also expressly permits relicensing to facilitate use with both
> copyleft and commercial licenses
>
> Could you point that bit of the UPL?
>
> > [...] is GPL compatible.
>
> Presumably this is asserting GPLv2 compatibility as GPLv3 is, by design,
> AL2 compatible.
> Could you please justify this assertion?
>
> Respectfully,
>
> --Tom
>
> p.s. It's worth noting that software is not, in fact, patentable under
>      §101 and the Supreme Court will hopefully clarify this in
>      the Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International decision.
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20140412/442d9858/attachment.html>