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

[Henrik Ingo]

Thank you!

Ok so just for the record, my original reading was something completely
different. I think I understand now what the point with this license is and
I agree with you it is more or equally permissive than alternatives and not
obviously contrary to the OSD.

I still have a number of other topics to raise and will do that later.

Henrik
On 16 Apr 2014 11:00, "Jim Wright" <jim.wright at oracle.com> wrote:

> Of course, happy to do it.  Responses to hypotheticals below - apologies
> for brevity, I'm getting ready to jump on a plane.
>
> Best,
>  Jim
>
> > On Apr 15, 2014, at 9:20 PM, Henrik Ingo <henrik.ingo at avoinelama.fi>
> wrote:
> >
> > 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?
>
> Licensed use - troll cannot sue.
>
> > 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?
>
> Yep, this is licensed use - troll cannot sue.
>
> >
> > 2.a) The use of org.henrik.rot13 in Eucalyptus licensed under GPLv2.
>
> Licensed use - troll cannot sue.
>
> > 2.b) The use of org.henrik.rot13 in Eucalyptus licensed under a
> > proprietary software license (which Eucalyptus can do)
>
> Licensed use - troll cannot sue.
>
>
> > 2.c) Other independent code in Eucalyptus that happens to implement
> > ROT13 encryption.
>
> Here, the troll *can* sue if the implementation is covered by the patent,
> because you have not extended your patent license to cover Eucalyptus as a
> whole above and beyond your own implementation under the UPL.
>
>
> > 3.a) An independent implementation of ROT13 in the Oracle Database.
>
> Licensed use - troll cannot sue.
>
>
> >
> >
> > 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20140416/448b1c38/attachment.html>