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

[Carlo Piana]

On 06/05/2014 21:29, Josh Berkus wrote:
> 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.
Josh,

I don't think this is actually true, because, however nefarious the
intended or declared use of the proponent, the license is the scope of
our analysis, not the intentions of those writing it -- which could
signal extra care is required, but that's it. We are reviewing the
message, not the messenger (somebody pointed out the MS licenses earlier
on).

Obviously I don't like people using a license only inbound and to build
more proprietary software without outbound contributions, but that's
beyond the scope of this list to policy good citizens of the free
software world. And I also am keen to hear from Jim, but I believe
Henrik assumes correctly, it's also my understanding.

my 2 cents.

Cheers

Carlo