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

[Jim Wright]

Hi Chris, thanks and see responses inline below.

 Regards,
  Jim


On Apr 13, 2014, at 10:18 PM, Christopher Sean Morrison <brlcad at mac.com> wrote:

> 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.

As drafted, the license does not discriminate against any group or person, or any technology.  Someone can extend the license further to cover a technology even broader than the Software itself, but the license to the covered Software on its own does not change.  And the same might be said of, for example, the GPLv3, which permits people to add additional permissions - nothing requires that those permissions someone may choose to add be technology neutral or otherwise nondiscriminatory, and this is consistent with the OSD because it does not require the license to *bar* discrimination against persons, groups, or technology in additional terms added by the copyright holders, only that the base license not discriminate against a particular person, group, or tech.  I believe the same principle applies here - the license, as drafted, does not discriminate.  


> 
> 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.
> 

Ah, but it's not patent rights only to these - you still get a license covering the Software, just not an even broader license covering those other things as well as an additional permission.



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

Unfortunately, no one wants an indiscriminate license to all of their patents for all applications, thus the widespread use of contributor agreements. 

> 
>> 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.

I agree, this is not expressly described, but implied, as the larger works file is a part of the grant from the author and no one else can edit that text and broaden the license granted by another party any more than they could do this by editing the grant text incorporating that file by reference.  (Think of it like an exhibit to an agreement.)  The reason I chose to push it to an external file was really primarily to facilitate license recognition engines and discourage folks from editing the license to the extent possible, as I am personally driven nuts by people editing the BSD and other permissive licenses.  I considered pushing out the copyright notice as well (or go as far as saying the license cannot be revised as some do), but decided to leave it in so as not to require multiple files unless you're licensing a larger work, which eases some use cases like stuff going over the wire to the browser.  I also considered simply allowing the user to name the licensed larger works below the license in the same file in the alternative, but didn't want people to look in multiple places or possibly end with people doing both at the same time, etc.  

If someone wants to grant rights for their own contributions beyond the rights from the original authors (seems like a corner case but ok), without altering the grants of others, this can easily be accommodated by separately licensing the original work and the modifications, the latter with the new scope. 


> 
>> 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.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review