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

[Engel Nyst]

In order to read what does the license say on copyright, I get this result:

> [...] permission is hereby granted, [...]under any and all [...]
> copyright rights owned or freely licensable by each licensor
> hereunder, whether an original author or another licensor, to any
> person [receiving a copy of the "Software"], to deal in
>
> [...]
>
> (b) any piece of software [...] listed in the LARGER_WORKS.TXT file
> [...]
>
> without restriction [...etc]

This text says that, by submitting some software to an entity under the
UPL, when there is a LARGER_WORKS file, I am giving this copyright
license for ANY software included in the larger works. I can't do that
for works I don't have the right to, but I could do that for works the
maintainers decide to include in the future in a larger work, not
submitted by me, but owned or licensable by me.

I thought I noted this little detail in a previous email that doesn't
seem to have made it to the list or was held in the queue.

I'd shortly suggest that if your intention is not to extend 'any and all
copyright rights owned or freely licensable by each licensor' to (b),
then please make (b) apply explicitly only to patents. It would also
clarify other confusions on what (b) means or how it works.

I note that all mainstream licenses with patent grants (A/GPLv3, AL2.0,
MPL2.0) make the patent grant in a separate section, with its own scope.


-- 
"Excuse me, Professor Lessig, may I ask you to sign this CLA, so we can
*legally* have your permission to remix and distribute your CC-licensed
works?"
~ Permission culture, take two.