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

Josh Berkus josh at postgresql.org
Tue May 6 17:18:12 UTC 2014

On 04/16/2014 02:06 PM, Henrik Ingo wrote:
> Clearly use of the UPL as a kind of CLA is a patent bonanza for the
> recipient of UPL licensed code. For example in the case of Java or
> MySQL, Oracle would be the recipient of a broad patent license from
> all of its contributors. At the same time Oracle would not be using
> the UPL in their outbound distribution of this software. (Otoh they
> are likely to use a license that includes a patent license for the
> whole of Java or MySQL, so maybe this is not such a big deal in
> practice.)

Huh?  I was assuming that Oracle *would* be distributing any such works
under the UPL.  Why would they need a new license if they didn't intend
to use it for outbound distribution?

It's not like Percona is going to take up the UPL just so they can
contribute to Oracle, unless they have some promise that what they
contribute will come back out UPL-licensed.

There's also no obligation for the license user to add anything to the
LARGER WORKS file at all.  You could leave it blank.

--Josh Berkus

More information about the License-review mailing list