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

[Henrik Ingo]

Ok, there are both native english speakers and legal experts on this
list, so if nobody else agrees with me, I'm going to yield at this
point, but will be satisfied with having at least highlighted this
part.

no further comments from me then. (Even if not all of the previous
ones are fully satisfied, I believe the discussion about them has
indeed been exhausted now.)

henrik

On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Jim Wright <jim.wright at oracle.com> wrote:
> After reading and rereading, I think I understand what you're saying but this is not now this wording is commonly interpreted, which is why no one else has questioned it - the phrase "provided that" does not necessarily require that the following text is a gating boolean condition on the former, it can also be used to introduce a clarification, as is the case here.
>
> The base text unambiguously says that you have the right to create derivative works.  This is a grant under one of the enumerated copyright rights, but one which in a vacuum might in theory also be read to extend the patent grant to new claims otherwise infringed by those derivatives.  (I did not read the original version this way but since a couple of others questioned it, I thought it worth clarifying.)  The parenthetical states that this copyright license grant does not in fact extend the patent license grant in such a fashion.  It does not say or imply that the copyright license grant to create derivative works is otherwise limited in any way by that limitation on the scope of the patent grant - the X in your statement is not a true or false condition that gates the copyright grant, it's a clarification of the scope of another, separate bundle of rights.  It's like me giving you my keys and saying you have the right to drive my car for the day, provided that this grant does not grant you the right to use other keys on my keyring to say, enter my home or use my bicycle - these two things are simply not inconsistent with each other.
>
>  Best,
>   Jim
>
>> On Sep 4, 2014, at 5:30 AM, Henrik Ingo <henrik.ingo at avoinelama.fi> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Jim Wright <jim.wright at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>> I appreciate that the text in parenthesis was added as a
>>>> clarification, however I'm afraid the current text can be read in the
>>>> other extreme instead: In practice it would often forbid creation of
>>>> any derivative works, since any non-trivial modification is more than
>>>> likely to infringe on somebody's patent, or at least that somebody
>>>> could easily claim that it does. For example, say that IBM is the
>>>> original author of some code to which I add some functionality, it's
>>>> clearly quite possible that my new functionality infringes on IBM's
>>>> vast patent portfolio. The above text could then be read as saying
>>>> that I'm not allowed to create a derivative work at all - not just
>>>> that the original patent grant doesn't extend to the derivative work.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sorry as I'm neither a lawyer or native English speaker, I will
>>>> not attempt to come up with a better sentence, but I hope you
>>>> understand what I'm criticising here.
>>>>
>>>> henrik
>>>
>>> Mr. Cowan's response is the right one here - this is not a proscription
>>> on creating a derivative work, it simply limits the scope of the patent
>>> license to the Software and the designated Larger Works.  I don't think
>>> many would read this as barring other derivative works, as such a
>>> construction would also bar them under other permissive licenses
>>> like BSD and Apache.   The feedback I got from the community here
>>> is that patent holders will not agree to a scope which licenses all their
>>> patents for any arbitrary modification, and in fact would be nervous
>>> about a license which could possibly be interpreted this way, thus the
>>> clarification - of course, you still *could* apply the license this way by
>>> simply stating that all derivative works are covered (and thanks in
>>> advance if you do ;-), which would be even broader than I intended the
>>> original draft.
>>
>> Yes. I understand what your intent is and I understand the motivation
>> of the patent holders behind this. However, what I'm saying is that
>> the text currently does not say this, and it says something else that
>> is pretty much the opposite of what you want to say. So the text just
>> needs to be fixed.
>>
>> What you want to say is that while derivative works are allowed, no
>> patent grants (or other rights?) are given to the new functionality.
>> Currently the text doesn't say that. It says that derivative works are
>> only allowed "provided that this does not" X, where X is likely to
>> always be true. In other words the words "provided that" is what I
>> have an issue with. The right to do derivative works in itself should
>> always be allowed.
>>
>> henrik
>>
>> --
>> henrik.ingo at avoinelama.fi
>> +358-40-5697354        skype: henrik.ingo            irc: hingo
>> www.openlife.cc
>>
>> My LinkedIn profile: http://fi.linkedin.com/pub/henrik-ingo/3/232/8a7



-- 
henrik.ingo at avoinelama.fi
+358-40-5697354        skype: henrik.ingo            irc: hingo
www.openlife.cc

My LinkedIn profile: http://fi.linkedin.com/pub/henrik-ingo/3/232/8a7