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

[Christopher Sean Morrison]

A standard patent-granting permissive license sounds like a fantastic idea, but my layperson read of the terms and your explanation lead me to believe this language fails several of the Open Source Definition criteria.

>> Jim Wright <jim.wright at oracle.com> writes:
>>> ... 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),
> 
> I also see a lot of other people's contribution agreements in my role at Oracle (I have to approve all of them), and am hoping that a standard form could help harmonize practices in this area.  The idea here is that the authors designate the intended larger work (in my example the Java platform) covered by the grant.

Specifically, this seems problematic for #5 (No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups), and potentially #10 (License Must be Technology Neutral).  Clause (b) could be viewed as discriminating against a group of persons (those not listed in the LARGER_WORKS.TXT file).  If hardware is listed, that would be directly predicating the license on a particular technology (that hardware).  I'm sure I could also contrive contents for a LARGER_WORKS.TXT file that would be blatantly discriminatory, too.

Including license provisions by reference (a separate file) seems like a bad idea to me in general for a whole host of reasons.  It might as well be named PATENT_RIGHTS_GRANTED_ONLY_TO_THESE.TXT.  It just obfuscates the fact that rights are being limited to a particular audience.  If you eliminated the file and embedded that list of patent grants into the terms directly, I'd think that problem would be even more apparent.

Remove clause (b) and you have a much better, indiscriminate patent-granting license.

> Of course it can also be used without a LARGER_WORKS.TXT file, in which case it becomes just a permissive license including a patent grant rather than a contributor agreement naming the work being contributed to.

I don't see specifically where this license text says that.  There also seems to be nothing describing (or preventing) a modified LARGER_WORKS.TXT file, whether validly edited or not, or requiring an unmodified file.  Sure they can't be creating patent grants out of thin air, but they could be intending to grant rights to their own contributions.

> The way this will have to work for the JCP is that both the license body and the LARGER_WORKS.TXT file will need to be part of the project license from the beginning and all contributors to a reference implementation will therefore understand that their contributions are licensed with that scope, no more and no less.

That's fine except that scope is inherently discriminatory.  Therein is the crux of the matter.

Cheers!
Sean


p.s.

>>> 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"?
>> 
> 
> 
> Under this license.  (Apologies for legalese. :-)

Both interpretations are viable legalese; the context is specifically unclear here.