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

[Tzeng, Nigel H.]

On 4/14/14 10:25 AM, "Josh Berkus" <josh at postgresql.org> wrote:

>You're assuming here that the downstream recipient has no patents of
>their own to grant usage to.  Let's give an example:
>
>1. Oracle releases a new compression library under this license.  It
>includes several Java things in LARGER_WORKS.txt.
>
>2. The Google Android team decide to include that compression library
>into Android OS.  At this point, they want to *add* Android to
>LARGER_WORKS, covering any compression patents which Google owns.

Josh, I think the point is that Android wouldn't have a patent grant to
use any compression patents released as part of a Java reference
implementation.  Since they don't it would be unwise to use it without
securing such rights seperately.


>That's a problem which would solve itself, I think.  What's a bigger
>issue is that popular libraries licensed under the UPL would accumulate
>multiple, conflicting LARGER_WORKS files.

I don't believe that the LARGER_WORKS will end up conflicting.  Either you
are one of the LARGER_WORKS or you are providing the LARGER_WORKS file. If
I'm providing the library to you then my LARGER_WORKS simply has a list of
every project that is okay. You are one of them. No conflict.

Any library I use has my library as a LARGER_WORKS.  No conflict.

If my library isn't one of the LARGER_WORKS listed by a sub-component
library then I shouldn't use that sub-component in my project since there
no patent grant.  If there is a conflict, I'm being silly.

>I do not agree with the other developers on this list that the UPL
>somehow violates the OSD.

I agree with you.  It is limiting but no more so than GPL from a practical
standpoint.