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

[Jim Wright]

Responses inline below.

Regards,
Jim

> On Aug 30, 2014, at 11:22 PM, Josh Berkus <josh at postgresql.org> wrote:
> 
> Jim,
> 
> Thank you for persisting with this, and trying to make a license to
> accomodate all concerns.

Doing my best here.  :)


>> On 08/29/2014 12:16 AM, Richard Fontana wrote:
>> (b) any piece of software and/or hardware listed in the LARGER_WORKS.TXT file if one is included with the Software (each a “Larger Work” to which the Software is contributed by such licensors),
> 
>>>> without restriction, including without limitation the rights to >
> make, use, sell, offer for sale, import, export, have made, have sold,
> copy, create derivative works of (provided that this does not license
> additional patent claims beyond those covering the unmodified Software
> and Larger Works), display, perform, distribute, and sublicense the
> Software and the Larger Work(s) on either these or other terms.
> 
> 
> So *as a developer*, I'm still confused about how this actually works.
> I'm not objecting, I'm asking for clarification.  Quite possibly such
> clarification just needs to be part of a FAQ.

Fair enough, if folks think it worthwhile I will build & post one once we're done.  

> 
> * If I receive software under the UPL which is part of a Larger Work,
> what license is the larger work under?  The text of the license seems to
> say that the Larger Work is under the UPL.

The Larger Work can be under an arbitrary license - the UPL does not dictate this, it only requires compliance with the UPL attribution requirements, etc. as to the Software.


> * If I include the Software and a Larger Work in my own software, and I
> have a patent on my software, what is the method for indicating that
> that patent is included in the UPL patent grant?  Does the patent grant
> from the upstream Larger Work still apply to me?

If you want your patent to be licensed under the UPL patent grant as to the Software & the Larger Work(s), simply offer a license to the Software, along with the Larger Works file, under the UPL.  If you *don't* want your patent to be licensed in this way, you can offer a license to the Software on other terms as well, though trying to distribute software without licensing your patents on those distributions raises tricky implied license and other questions.


> 
> * Can I remove the names of Larger Works from an inherited LARGER_WORKS
> file if I want to?  Can I remove the whole file?

You need to think carefully about what you're trying to achieve here, as you probably don't want to purport to alter the grant from the original authors (though again, you can relicense the whole thing on other terms if you want, and removing the larger works designation is one of those possibilities - I'm just not sure this is preferred).  If one wanted to make modifications and not distribute them subject to the same license scope, you can either relicense the whole thing as desired or better yet, simply add another license for your own additions (either the UPL with a Larger Works file covering something different, or nothing at all, or an entirely different license).  The trick to remember is that you obviously cannot extend the breadth of the license offered by others (so you can't, e.g., add new things to the Larger Works file and expect that this binds prior contributors).

> * "... on either these or other terms."  What does this phrase mean?

See above - the license expressly permits relicensing with a different license grant to the extent it comports with the requirements of the UPL as to the UPLed code (e.g., attribution).

> --Josh Berkus
> 
>