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

[Richard Fontana]

On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 10:43:10 -0400
"Tzeng, Nigel H." <Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu> wrote:
 
> From the perspective of the organizers of the larger work the
> advantages are clearest.  There are no CLAs to manage.  As long as
> the provider of the reference implementation has submitted under UPL
> and my project shows up under that LARGER_WORKS file we're all good.
> The source code is open and there are no patent worries.
 
I could be completely wrong but I do not think this is the sort of use
that Jim (who mentioned the interest in using this in reference
implementations) was talking about. Rather I seemed to understand Jim
to be talking about the use of this as a contributor license for some,
but not all, contributors to a reference implementation. Not as a
license for the reference implementation itself. (Obviously it could
nonetheless be used in that way.)

I agree that not having to manage CLAs is an advantage in the RI
context. 

- RF