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

[Henrik Ingo]

Hi Jim

Thanks for your reply. It and the continued discussion have helped me
understand what you are possibly trying to achieve...

On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Jim Wright <jim.wright at oracle.com> wrote:
> I believe you may differ with me and many others on the scope of the BSD and MIT licenses.  (And, disagreement about the scope of implied licenses is part of the problem with relying on an implied license in the first place.)
>

I'm aware of that. Still I'm not alone in my opinion either, which is
shared for example by people publishing code under those licenses. My
point is just that with my belief that you were proposing an open
source license that includes an explicit restrictive/exclusive patent
clause, then I would of course rather prefer a license that may
include a fairer patent grant, even if it's vague. Otoh it is of
course true that even better would be a license with a more explicit
and "non restrictive" patent grant. (Sorry, I think I'm running out of
competence wrt English language here, hope it was somewhat
understandable...)


> The license to the Software itself in the UPL is certainly as broad if not broader than any express or implied patent license in the BSD or MIT licenses, and the ability to expressly license larger works as well, granting additional permissions beyond even the license for the Software, broadens the license beyond how any patent lawyer I know construes either of them.  In short, this license is less restrictive, not more IMHO.
>

Clearly the proposed text is not clear, as it's not only me that
struggles to understand it by a simple reading. But I'll happily leave
that aside for now and try to focus on what you were trying to
articulate.

If you're asserting that you want to propose a less restrictive
license than those that exist, then the interpretation proposed by
Simon Phipps might make sense. So let me ask for how the license would
apply in the following examples:

***

I've invented an encryption protocol called ROT13, and have a software
patent for it. I've implemented this in a java library
org.henrik.rot13

1. I contribute org.henrik.rot13 to the Apache Tomcat project under
the UPL. I list Apache Tomcat in the LARGER_WORKS.TXT file.

2. Independently of me, Eucalyptus copies org.henrik.rot13 to use in
their software (which is java and GPLv2 licensed)

3. I list "Oracle Database" in the LARGER_WORKS.TXT file. I cannot of
course actually contribute the code to a closed source codebase.

Finally, I'm bankrupt and need to sell my patent to a patent troll.
Which of the following can the patent troll now sue, and which will be
protected by the patent grant in the UPL?


1.a) The use of org.henrik.rot13 in Apache Tomcat?

1.b) There is other code in Apache Tomcat that independently
implements ROT13 encryption (or something very similar). Is this other
code in Apache Tomcat now also protected by my patent grant in UPL?

2.a) The use of org.henrik.rot13 in Eucalyptus licensed under GPLv2.
2.b) The use of org.henrik.rot13 in Eucalyptus licensed under a
proprietary software license (which Eucalyptus can do)
2.c) Other independent code in Eucalyptus that happens to implement
ROT13 encryption.

3.a) An independent implementation of ROT13 in the Oracle Database.




I think there are other smaller reservations, for example wrt the
logistics of many authors contributing the code to different projects,
but I wanted to use the above example questions to understand what you
mean when you say the patent grant would be more permissive.




henrik



-- 
henrik.ingo at avoinelama.fi
+358-40-5697354        skype: henrik.ingo            irc: hingo
www.openlife.cc

My LinkedIn profile: http://fi.linkedin.com/pub/henrik-ingo/3/232/8a7