[License-review] Request for Approval of Universal Permissive License (UPL)
josh at postgresql.org
Tue May 6 19:29:44 UTC 2014
On 05/06/2014 12:06 PM, Henrik Ingo wrote:
> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 8:18 PM, Josh Berkus <josh at postgresql.org> wrote:
>> 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?
> My understanding is the UPL would replace or be an alternative to the
> inbound Contributor License Agreement. So for example you would use
> the UPL to contribute a piece of code to Java, but within the Java
> codebase that code would then be GPL+proprietary dual licensed.
Jim? Can you comment on this? If Oracle is *only* going to be using
this license inbound, then it's really a CLA, even though it looks like
a license, as as such beyond the purview of this committee.
More information about the License-review