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

[Jim Wright]

Hi Tom, good questions and my answers are inline below.

 Regards,
  Jim


On Apr 12, 2014, at 6:20 AM, 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)"?
> 


The idea is simply that someone could choose to include hardware in the scope of what is being contributed to (e.g., an appliance or mobile device) for the purpose of the license grant - I wasn't thinking of it as an open hardware license, though in theory someone might use it for this application.



>> [...] 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?

Yes, that's exactly right - per my responses to Karl and Gerv, the LARGER_WORKS.TXT file limits the scope of the grant such that if someone wants to contribute to Project X, they can list Project X in their LARGER_WORKS.TXT file, without worrying that their patents will also be construed as licensed for Project Y other than to the extent embodied in the Software on its own.  

The intent here is that the copyright license covering the entire code of the Software will still allow you to use it in a downstream or derivative use which is not specified if there are no patents involved, but the patent grant will not extend any further than the Software itself and the works specified in LARGER_WORKS.TXT - so, by way of example, if someone wants to contribute to Java via a reference implementation under the UPL, we set the LARGER_WORKS.TXT file to cover Java and then they don't have to worry that all of their patents will also be licensed for use in the Oracle DB by virtue of this grant.  (Yes, there you have it, I said it in writing.)  


> 
> In this interpretation does the UPL actually provide
> much value beyond MIT?

Yes, it absolutely does IMHO.  Many patent lawyers will tell you the scope of the patent license in the MIT license is uncertain, and here, we are firmly cementing the intended scope from the outset, both as to the Software itself and its use in other things. 



> 
> Does the UPL meet the spirit of the Open Source Definition
> (esp. 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor)?
> 

I believe it does and do not see or intend any discrimination against any field here, and I think the rationale of no. 6 (permitting use in both FOSS and proprietary projects) is exactly the intent of the license.  



>> It also expressly permits relicensing to facilitate use with both copyleft and commercial licenses
> 
> Could you point that bit of the UPL?


The grant sentence ends with "and sublicense the Software and the Larger Work(s) on either these or other terms."


> 
>> [...] is GPL compatible.
> 
> Presumably this is asserting GPLv2 compatibility as GPLv3 is, by design, AL2 compatible.
> Could you please justify this assertion?
> 

Yes, referring to GPLv2.  I don't want to speak for the FSF or anyone else but suffice it to say it's been reviewed by multiple parties unrelated to Oracle and there has been no disagreement or question on this point.  The license has an attribution condition similar to that in the MIT license and this kind of condition is not GPL incompatible for either v2 or v3.


> 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