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

Henrik Ingo henrik.ingo at avoinelama.fi
Thu May 8 18:56:34 UTC 2014

Ok, cool. It seems Jim has answered you question then.

On 8 May 2014 20:50, "Josh Berkus" <josh at postgresql.org> wrote:

> On 05/07/2014 10:55 PM, Henrik Ingo wrote:
> > Jim,
> >
> > I don't think you answered Josh' real question. (Or alternatively I
> > misunderstood his concern.)
> I think you may have.  My concern is much simpler.
> > On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 11:02 PM, Jim Wright <jim.wright at oracle.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Sure Josh - it's clearly not just a CLA even if we ourselves
> >> weren't going to use it for any other purposes, but in any event
> >> that doesn't matter as I hope to use it as an outbound too (and
> >> hope others will as well obviously).
> My concern is: if Oracle isn't planning to distribute any software under
> this license, I don't see the point in us approving it.  I'm pretty
> solidly on the anti-proliferation end this committee, so I'm going to
> vote against any licence which the submitter doesn't intend to actually
> use to distribute software, even if the license otherwise makes sense.
> The OSI historically has not been in the practice of approving new
> licenses to fill holes in the license portfolio just because those holes
> exist.
> Other license submitters who come to this committee, even the so-called
> "crayon licenses", have a specific piece of software in mind that they
> want to distribute under that license.  In many cases, they are already
> using the license and are asking for approval.  Submitters who are large
> publicly traded companies may not share which specific projects those
> are with this committee (Microsoft did not), but their reason for
> requesting the license is invariably that they have specific code to be
> distributed under it.  Therefore, it causes me significant concern that
> the submitter of this license is extremely vague about their uses for it.
> If Oracle is unsure of when or if they plan to use this license, then my
> suggestion is to wait and come back for approval when Oracle has a
> specific plan for it.  I find it unlikely that the OSI would take longer
> to approve a license than it would take to open-source a piece of
> internal software at a large company.
> --Josh Berkus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20140508/5725107f/attachment.html>

More information about the License-review mailing list