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

[Richard Fontana]

On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 09:39:25 -0700
Jim Wright <jim.wright at oracle.com> wrote:

[Gerv wrote:] 
> > Sorry if I'm being dense, but I can't make head or tail of that :-((
> > What has 3rd party GPLed code going into (or not going into)
> > OpenJDK got to do with deciding whether the UPL is equivalent to,
> > better than or worse than Apache+GPLv2-only-clause?
> 
> Because you licensing the code under both Apache and GPLv2-only means
> that what is going into my GPLed package is a piece of code licensed
> from you under the GPLv2, and subject to those rights and
> restrictions.  I can't then restore someone's rights if they breach
> the GPL for that package, as I'm not the only licensor under the GPL
> - only you can restore as to your own GPLed code.  Thus trying to fix
> compliance problems with anyone gets substantially more difficult and
> complicated.   

I don't think Gerv means "dual license under Apache License 2.0 or
GPLv2". I think he means license in under Apache License 2.0 with
additional permission that nullifies whatever it is inside the
Apache License that is supposed to cause GPLv2 incompatibility. In such
a case, no third-party GPL code is being licensed in. It's all
slightly-more-permissive Apache License code. 

 - RF