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

Tue Sep 9 21:04:58 UTC 2014

A correction.... I wrote:
> I'm aware of no FOSS license which allows that code to be relicensed.

I forgot about MPL, which allows relicensing under specific GPL "Secondary"
licenses. I even forgot my own NOSL which allows (even requires!)
relicensing under the OSL when a non-profit becomes a for-profit. :-)

And of course there are the "GPLv2 or later" notices which have the effect
of allowing relicensing.

But that has nothing to do with sublicensing either, so it my forgetfulness
does not affect my argument.

/Larry

From: Lawrence Rosen [mailto:lrosen at rosenlaw.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 9, 2014 12:57 PM
To: 'License submissions for OSI review'
Cc: Lawrence Rosen
Subject: RE: [License-review] Request for Approval of Universal Permissive
License (UPL)

This is in the paper referred to by Jim Wright:

An assumption made by this paper is that licensees are granted their license
by distributors, and not by the original licensor. 

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070114093427179 

I don't agree with that assumption. As least for me and for everyone else
covered by U.S. copyright law, we intend that anything we write and publish
under a FOSS or Creative Commons license remains under that license while we
are alive – and beyond – regardless of what downstream distributors do with
their own products or services.

If a distributor incorporates certain FOSS code it finds with a NOTICE that
a specific license applies (as decided or authorized by the copyright owner)
(e.g., the BSD or GPLv2 or CC-BY licenses), then that is the license that
applies for all valid copies of that code received by anyone under the terms
of that license. Is that axiom being questioned? 

Sometimes that specific license also applies to derivative works of that
code (e.g., GPL, MPL), or can compel notice obligations on both copies and
derivative works (e.g., CC-BY). 

I'm aware of no FOSS license which allows that code to be relicensed.
Private commercial arrangements are possible, of course, directly with the
copyright owner. [The term "sublicensing" has another meaning entirely!]

The specific terms and conditions of the original FOSS license accompany
that code in perpetuity (or for 100 years, whichever comes first). Every
FOSS license, regardless of sublicensing, allows that code to be
incorporated into derivative and collective works. That plus source code!
What more does anyone need of the 17 U.S.C. § 106 copyright rights?

The original FOSS license, including its notice requirements, applies to a
copy that is in a collective or derivative work, although it may not apply
to the collective or derivative work itself. Those are separate works under
17 U.S.C. for which a different license may be allowed. But for notice
requirements, for example, CC0 components included proprietary derivative
works don't need to be noticed but CC-BY components do.

Once we agree on those basic principles, then it is fair to ask whether
"sublicensing" actually provides anything different or whether it is an
ancient commercial licensing word that was thrown into the MIT and other
licenses among the 17 USC 106 "copyright rights" actually being licensed for
no important purpose.

/Larry

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Wright [mailto:jim.wright at oracle.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 4, 2014 3:02 PM
To: Josh Berkus
Cc: license-review at opensource.org <mailto:license-review at opensource.org> 
Subject: Re: [License-review] Request for Approval of Universal Permissive
License (UPL)

Others may weigh in, but IMHO, people commonly interpret at least some other
permissive licenses similarly, especially the MIT license since it includes
an express right to sublicense.  I have, however, seen some disagreement on
the topic in various contexts (see, e.g.,
<http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070114093427179>
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070114093427179), and I am aiming
for improved clarity here, thus spelling it out explicitly in the UPL.

Best,

Jim

>> On Sep 4, 2014, at 12:13 PM, Josh Berkus < <mailto:josh at postgresql.org>
josh at postgresql.org> wrote:

>> 

>> On 09/04/2014 05:49 AM, Jim Wright wrote:

>> Specific pass-through license requirements or scope limitations like not
being able to remove conditions of the inbound license don't necessarily
mean you are required to license outbound under identical terms.  You can
offer another license for the code, and are not required to offer a license
under the UPL yourself, it's just that the terms you choose may not, e.g.,
remove the notice condition imposed by the original authors.  So it's "or".

> 

> OK, that doesn't make intuitive sense to this layman.  Can a lawyer on 

> this list comment?

> 

> Jim, the reason I'm after this point is that your text is different 

> from the MIT, BSD and PostgreSQL licenses in this respect.  I'm trying 

> to find out if the difference is significant -- or could be *made* to 

> be significant by 3rd parties.

> 

> --Josh Berkus

> 

_______________________________________________

License-review mailing list

 <mailto:License-review at opensource.org> License-review at opensource.org

 <http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review>
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20140909/7b516b30/attachment.html>