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

[Jim Wright]

If so (and assuming we could agree what changes confer GPL compatibility, and don't want to combine with *other* copyleft licenses or could review each for this purpose and arrange compatibility with those as well, and get the change OSI approved to make it usable on forges that require this... :), this still wouldn't extend the patent license to the work being contributed to, only the contributions, plus the other differences you noted - i.e., that is still a materially different scope than the license in the UPL IMHO.

Best,
 Jim

> On Apr 16, 2014, at 3:15 AM, Richard Fontana <fontana at sharpeleven.org> wrote:
> 
> 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